Posted: June 6th, 2015
PARTY POLITICS AND THE CHALLENGES OF A SUSTAINABLE DEMOCRACY
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the state and nature of party politics and the challenge of a sustainable democracy in Nigeria. The objectives of the study included investigating the history of Nigerian democracy, understanding core parts of Nigerian democracy, the content of the Nigerian constitution on democracy, the history of Nigerian political parties, and the composition of political parties in Nigeria. The qualitative data collected from interviews and desk research were analyzed thematically. A total of 50 respondents were interviewed. The sample for the study consisted of adults (18 years and above) drawn from different gender, social class, and occupation. However, priority was given to those people who were conversant with the subject of sustainable democracy in Nigeria and the challenge it has faced. The researcher found that Nigeria is a country where attaining sustainable democracy remains a major challenge. It was also found that political parties have not played the lead role in achieving sustainable democracy. To achieve sustainable democracy in Nigeria the researcher found that political parties must function and deal with corruption, militancy and conflicts, poverty, Nigeria’s overreliance on foreign aid, religious bigotry and intolerance, impunity and poor governance, media censorship, and an ill-equipped civil society.
Key words: party politics, sustainable democracy, Nigeria, corruption, civil society, media, militancy, Africa, and governance.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review.. 22
Political Parties and Democracy. 22
Africa and Foreign Aid: Implications for Democracy. 26
The State of Democracy in Africa. 31
Why Democracy Does Not Work in Africa. 34
Impacts of Politics and Corruption on Sustainable Democracy. 40
The State of Political Parties in Africa. 44
Origins of Democracy in Africa. 48
Organized Militias and their Impact on Sustainable democracy in Africa. 54
Impacts of Ethnicity on Democracy in Africa. 58
Poverty, Underdevelopment and Democracy. 62
Democracy and the Media in Africa. 73
CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology. 77
Research Questions and Research Hypothesis. 77
Sample and sampling process. 83
Scope and Delimitations of the Study. 86
Credibility and Utility of the Study. 89
Effects of Nigeria’s History on its Democracy. 92
Nigeria’s Current State of Democracy Relative to that of the First Republic. 97
How Nigeria Fairs with Respect to the Five Tenets of Democracy. 100
Majority rule and minority rights. 104
Democracy and Cconstitutionality in Nigeria. 107
Nigerian Political Parties: Formation, History, Composition, Role, and Relevance. 109
Protection of Individual Rights. 115
Quantity of Resources Committed to Achievement of Sustainable Democracy. 121
Impediments to Sustainable Democracy. 121
Poverty and Nigeria’s overreliance on foreign aid. 125
Religious bigotry and intolerance. 127
Impunity and poor governance. 128
Media censorship and an Ill-equipped civil society. 128
CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusions and Recommendations. 130
List of Tables
Table 1. Nigerian Leaders from 1960 to date………………………………………………………………….144
Table 2. Political Parties starting with the fourth to republic to the current.…………………145
CHAPTER ONE: Overview
Sustainable democracy is an elusive concept that has been accomplished by few nations across the world (Brown, 2009). There is no denying, however, the significance of democracy in the betterment of the world. It is not by surprise that most of the flourishing countries across the world are under democratic rule. This elaborates the pertinence of developing a sustainable democratic governance system across the world. The challenge, however, has been associated with the sacrifices required to meet the standards of sustainable democracy (Brown, 2009). The institutions responsible for the achievement and management of sustainable democracy are paramount in the process. Pivotal among these institutions are political parties.
Political parties have had a long and troubled history around the world (Springer, 2011). The formation of political parties is hinged on democratic rule. Democracy cannot be attained in the absence of a formidable and effective political party system. Like democracy, political party systems have undergone considerable changes since their institution. The essence of political parties to sustainable democracy is embroidered in their nature of operations. Political parties are vehicles by which political leaders attain democratic leadership. Hence, without efficient political parties, democracy is challenged by dictatorships and corrupt governance. The system and the nature of political parties can explain the governance challenges of a country. Developed countries are characteristic stable with expanded political freedom. Developing countries such as Nigeria are characteristic of poorly organized political parties aligned along tribal and religious concepts (Olarinmoye, 2008).
Nigeria’s democratic journey has been characterised by periods of turmoil and success in equal measure. According to Ujo (2000), political parties have remained paramount in the process of attaining sustainable democracy in Nigeria. Democracy is seen as a western model, and hence faces considerable challenges from Nigerian cultural leadership structures. Democracy, however, has provided credible governance to Nigerian society as a whole. The historical turmoil of Nigerian political parties has contributed to the current state of political leadership in Nigeria. The military coup of 1966 terminated political parties in Nigeria, hence halting the advance of democracy (Siollun, 2009). Sustainable democracy and political parties in Nigeria have been instrumental to the betterment of Nigerian society. They have, nevertheless, contributed directly or passively to negativities associated with the current governance in Nigeria, such as corruption and poor security management (Okoosi-Simbine, 2011). They provide the leadership that has overseen the development of these vices in Nigerian politics. This is just but a small part of the challenges associated with sustainable democracy and political parties in Nigeria.
Background of the Problem
Democracy is an important part of social and economic empowerment. This system of governance is not perfect, but is the best of the governing systems available across the world. There is a need to enhance the need for sustainable democracy, especially in developing countries such as Nigeria. Nigeria’s success is based on the ability of the country to build a sustainable democracy that respects the principle rules of democracy and favours the public over a few elite. The problem as introduced above pertains to the role of political parties in creating a sustainable democracy. In order to evaluate the basis of this problem, it is essential to examine the Nigerian system based on the tenets of democracy. A sustainable development is one that achieves a balance and maximizes these five canons of democracy. These are: the worth of the individual, equality of all persons, majority rule and minority rights, the necessity of compromise, and individual freedom. These five principles provide the best approach to evaluating a democratic system of the ruling and its effectiveness (Ihonvbere, 1996).
Worth of the individual.
According to Lind (2008), democracy allows every individual under its jurisdiction to be treated as an equal part of the country. The tenet of the worth of the individual refers to the importance of each person in a country. Under this concept the governance of the country is meant to serve the needs of the individual as a way of improving the life of the whole society. This is opposed to communism approach that serves the society as a way of improving the individual’s life. The importance of this principle is illustrated in the election process where every individual is given the opportunity to contribute to the governance of the country.
The worth of the individual is not placed on their achievement or their wealth; rather their worth is attached to their citizenship (Freitag & Stadelmann-Steffen, 2010). Once an individual is a citizen, either by birth or other constitutional means, they are granted a place in the governance of the country. This tenet of democracy is important for many aspects of social and economic development to be achieved. For instance, in the case of Nigeria, every person is afforded a chance at leadership and governance just by being a citizen. This means that the country can be ruled by anyone who is a citizen, regardless of their class and stature or gender. The realities of governance, however, are controlled by the other tenets of democracy. This is necessitated by the realities of economic and social dominance of a democratic society. While anyone is allowed to be a leader, natural, social and economic factors determine who has the probability of becoming a leader in Nigerian society (Jega, 2007).
In Nigeria, the concept of worth of the individual is provided for in the constitution. This is an important basis for evaluating democratic rule in the country. The problem area, however, is associated with the implementation of the concept. The ideal approach of sustainable democracy is that every citizen is afforded the opportunity to either govern or determine who governs. This translates to participation of every individual. The role of the government is to facilitate this concept. This means that the government is responsible for facilitating citizen participation, rather than obstructing it. The choice to participate or not, however, is left to the individual. Nigeria’s situation is less than ideal when it comes to the worth of the individual. While there have been tremendous improvements in how citizens participate in governance, there is a need for improvements.
There are many determining factors to this situation in Nigeria. The focus of this research, however, pertains to the role played by political parties in facilitating sustainable democracy. Political parties in Nigeria have a part to play in the enhancement of the concept of worth of the individual. Since political parties contribute directly to the leadership pool of the country, they indirectly facilitate or obstruct the worth of the individual. In Nigeria, service to the individual has not reached the desired level (Olarinmoye, 2008). There are many areas where individuals are denied rights based on certain factors such as geography or due to mismanagement of governance by an elite group (Soludo, 2005). The role of political parties is to ensure that the people they represent are not subjugated or denied their place in the democratic system.
As indicated above, the premise of democracy is highly based on the worth of the individual. This tenet determines the achievement of a sustainable democracy. While some level of the principle is evident in the Nigerian situation, there is a large insufficiency in the ideal implementation of the worth of the individual. Political parties have not effectively supported the implementation of this tenet in the Nigerian governance system. The worth of the individual in a democracy should be paramount and protected by the governance system.
Equality of all persons.
Every democracy has struggled to ensure that equality of all persons is implemented. Equality is a basic requirement for any democracy. According to Abizadeh (2008, p. 37), the tenet of equality of all persons means that all people are created equal. This means that every person under the democracy has the same level of freedom to pursue success and is under the same level of legal scrutiny as every other person regardless of their wealth or standing. This tenet is complex as it requires an intellectual approach. In the literal sense, the principle could show that every person should be equally adorned with wealth and power or have equality of mind and strength. A literal approach would bring forth conflict in many areas. Equality of all persons does not presume that every person has an equal share of wealth, neither does it suppose equality of ability; instead this canon means that each person is allowed equal opportunity for self betterment, and that the law applies equally to every individual (Ituma & Simpson, 2007). This canon is also meant to ensure that there is no discrimination based on people’s personal attributes such as age, gender, race, or religion.
This principle is absolute in importance to democracy. A sustainable democracy is meant to promote each individual’s quality of life. It is also meant to ensure that governance applies equally to all people. In a sustainable democracy, each individual is allowed to thrive towards their own goals in life. The importance of this canon is that it gives ways in which this development can be carried out and limits the extent to which one person’s freedom affects the other through the law. For example, every person is allowed to start and run a business in a sustainable democracy (Ituma & Simpson, 2007). This is the opportunity to flourish; however, this business is subject to the rule of law, whether it is a multibillion dollar entity or it is a small family business. For instance, in many democracies, every individual is subject to taxation.
The case of Nigeria, envisages a situation far from the desired position. While the concept of equal opportunity is in the constitution, there are plenty of barriers to equality. Nigerian society is comprised of different classes and ethnic groups, which determine opportunity (Ukiwo, 2005). This means that there are differences in access to resources and opportunities depending on your class and ethnic background. Nepotism is also a consistent problem in Nigerian politics and governance (Azeez, 2004). These factors reduce the implication of equality of all persons. These factors are not unique to Nigeria and have challenged numerous developing democracies considerably. In order to achieve a sustainable democracy, equality of all persons has to be enforced. Based on this assessment, there are considerable legal and social changes required for the Nigerian democracy to become successful.
The role of political parties inequality cannot be ignored. Developed countries have stable political party systems that adhere to the law and stick to their principles. These political parties often have guidelines and are governed appropriately according to the law
This is significantly different from the situation in Nigeria and other developing democracies. The characteristics of political parties are often reflections of the governance structure. As mentioned before, political parties contribute to the leadership pool in the country (Brown, 2009). Issues of equality of all persons are present in Nigerian political parties. Even in political parties, all persons are not equal. Ideally, the principle of equality should mean that political parties should offer all their members equal opportunity to pursue leadership and prosperity within the confines of the party (Cheibub et al., 2010). This is not accomplished due to the issues mentioned above such as nepotism, ethnicity and class. These challenges prevent political parties from treating all their members equally (Azeez, 2009). Another approach to the problem is the lack of knowledge among party members of the opportunity. They cannot take up opportunities because party leadership withholds information.
Statement of Problem
The discussions above illustrate that there are basic principles guiding democracy. The discussion also demonstrates that political parties have an instrumental role in implementing each of these principles. The attainment of these principles is pertinent to sustainable democracy Nigeria has not achieved any of the milestones required for a sustainable development. There is room, however, for improvement and achievement of sustainable democracy. Sustainable democracy is important to Nigeria’s success. Political parties in Nigeria have actively or passively failed to promote sustainable democracy.
Objectives of the Study
This study is meant to investigate Nigeria’s democracy and political parties. The study should achieve the recommendations into how the country could achieve sustainable democracy. Since political parties are instrumental in this process, a key focus of this study is their role in the current state of Nigerian democracy. The following are the objectives of this study:
- To investigate the history, core and role of both the constitution and political parties in promoting democracy in Nigeria
- To investigate the concept of worth of the individual in Nigeria and to create appropriate recommendations for the achievement of sustainable democracy
Significance of the Study
Sustainable democracy is an important concept for the flourishing of the world. A majority of the world’s countries has not achieved this level of democracy and continue to suffer challenges associated with the limited democratic rule (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009). Even countries renowned for their wealth and technological advancement face similar challenges as Nigeria. Sustainable development is difficult to maintain, due to the sacrifices and discipline required, especially of the leadership. This indicates the importance of this research. This research will provide background information on Nigeria. This information is important for all parties seeking to promote democracy; government or non-governmental organizations.
Research Questions
Research questions are pertinent to the study. These questions guide the researcher’s approach in the field. These are construed from the objectives of the study. These questions guide the study by ensuring that it covers every aspect of political parties and democracy in Nigeria. Since they are based on the objectives of the research, they are appropriate for the formation of hypotheses. This explains the detailed approach in the formation of the following questions:
- How has Nigeria’s history affected its democracy?
- How is Nigeria’s present situation compared to democracy at independence?
- How does the constitution talk about democracy?
- How relevant is the constitution in Nigeria’s democratic rule?
- How are political parties formed in Nigeria?
- How has the history of political parties been in Nigeria?
- How are political parties structured?
- How has the composition of political parties contributed to the country’s leadership?
- How relevant have the political parties been in Nigeria’s democracy?
- How have the political parties contributed to the achievement of democracy in Nigeria?
- How are leaders elected or selected?
- How worthy is an individual in Nigeria?
- How does equality of all personrates in Nigeria?
- How does the system of majority rule restrain minority rights in Nigeria?
- How does compromise affect Nigeria’s democracy?
- How is individual freedom emphasised in Nigeria?
- How does the government of Nigeria protect individual rights?
- How have resources been invested in achieving sustainable democracy?
- How are government policies enhancing sustainable democracy?
- How have the challenges affected the achievement of sustainable democracy in Nigeria?
Research Assumptions
Research assumptions present an outline of the research findings based on current knowledge estimations. This is instrumental to the achievement of research objectives. Assumptions guide the researcher. The findings of the research should be cross checked against the assumptions to indicate the validity of the researcher’s knowledge and estimations relative to the situation on the ground (Lancaster, 2005)..
The researcher assumes that the tenets of democracy are the primary factors of evaluation of sustainable democracy. This is a vital assumption since it means that a sustainable democracy has to achieve a balance between these factors. It is possible, however, that a democracy can be achieved based on less than these tenets or without them altogether. This means that the recommendations of this research are only viable until another form of democracy is developed. Since democracy is always developing, this is possible (Lancaster, 2005).
The research assumes that the respondents provide accurate information. The information provided by respondents will be cross checked for facts; however, since there are few records of necessary data and it is difficult to sort through what is available. This limits the accuracy of the research to the honesty of the respondents.
The research also takes to be truthful, national data used in the research. For instance, data such as ethnic diversity, political parties and their composition, and monetary figures from the government, are assumed to be true. This limits the accuracy of the research conclusion to the precision of these figures.
The following research assumptions are based on the research questions above.
- Nigeria’s history has negatively affected democratic rule. The differences amongst ethnic and religious communities contribute to the poor situation of Nigerian democracy.
- Nigeria has improved considerably in its state of democracy. Present Nigeria is comparably better than at independence.
- The constitution states that Nigeria is a democratic country. The constitution also highlights a federal system of ruling under democracy.
- The constitution is poorly followed in matters of democracy. It is partially followed in the approach to government.
- The law provides for the formation of political parties in Nigeria. There are more than twenty political parties in Nigeria, although two of them represent most of the country.
- Political parties have existed since 1960. Their prominence has continued to rise as more freedoms for the people are achieved.
- Nigerian political parties are pan-national and secular in nature. There is a distinct prominence of dominant ethnicities in the country.
- Political parties contribute to the country’s leadership and therefore, their composition has a direct implication on Nigeria’s democracy.
- Political parties directly and indirectly contribute to the nature of Nigeria’s democracy.
- Political parties have increased competition for Nigerian leadership and therefore led to improved leadership.
- Nigerian composition is reminiscent of the country’s ethnic divide. Certain communities have attempted to acquire multiple prominent positions of power.
- The worth of the individual is not prominently promoted in Nigeria. This is evident by the lack of ample security in the country.
- Equality of persons is only partially protected in Nigeria. Citizens are allowed to participate in voting and other democratic activities, although opportunity to achieve is inconspicuous in the country.
- Nigeria’s majorities evidently comprise the government. However, minority rights are poorly protected as evidenced by religious and ethnic persecution.
- Nigeria’s democracy is negatively affected by the lack of sufficient compromise. Communities fail to compromise on prominent issues such as sharing resources.
- Individual freedom is present in Nigeria. Citizens are allowed to carry out economic activities freely and move around the country without barriers. One challenge to individual freedom is bipartisan conflict such as that between Christians and Muslims.
- The government protects individual rights by providing a legal framework to handle cases of rights infringement. The inadequacies in the legal framework, however, have limited this protection to a few citizens.
- The government invests a considerable amount of resources and personnel for the achievement of sustainable development. These resources, however, are poorly managed and devoured by corruption agencies. This results in poor advancement in the democratic process.
- Some government policies enhance sustainable democracy. These policies, however, result in inadequate improvements of democracy since they are poorly implemented or violated by those responsible for them. Some policies also go against the tenets of democracy and therefore limit sustainable development from being achieved.
- The Nigerian government is faced with considerable challenges, including insecurity, corruption, ethnicity, and poor resource management. These limit the ability of the government to implement the constitutional requirements for a sustainable development.
Theoretical Framework
Academic theory is instrumental in the research. This research crosses different theories of democracy that could explain the current situation in Nigerian democracy and the anticipated sustainable democracy. These theories provide a highlight into the understanding of democratic systems and provide insights into the factors affecting these systems.
The theory of radical democracy infers that hierarchical and domineering power relations are present in societies (Springer, 2011). According to this theory, the role of democracy is to make these relations prominent and challenge the status quo. This theory is pertinent to the current research. Nigeria’s society is characteristic of ethnic and religious differences that lead to cruel power imbalances. Prominent ethnic groups are heavily involved in governance, while many smaller groups are disadvantaged by this situation (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009). This brings to focus the tenet of majority rule restricted by minority rights.
The theory of deliberative democracy suggests that a democratic government is meant to be run through discussions. Proponents of this theory argue that public policies and laws should be based on motives that are agreeable to all citizens (Mansbridge, et al., 2010). This is relevant to the desired state of Nigerian democracy. This promotes the idea that the necessity for compromise drive democratic rule. Deliberative democracy is important for the achievement of a sustainable democracy.
The theories of minimalist democracy and direct democracy are conflicting ideas that apply to the Nigerian situation. Minimalist democracy is an approach to governance that requires citizens to give authority to teams of political leaders through elections. This idea argues that these leaders should be given absolute authority to make laws and public policies since citizens lack the ability to make clear decisions (Møller & Skaaning 2013). On the other hand direct democracy suggests a system of government where citizens directly make decisions without representation. This means that laws are voted on by all citizens and public policies are enacted by citizen participation (Olken, 2010). This approach requires high levels of citizen education. The Nigerian case is characteristic of both of these systems. A proper combination of the two could improve leadership and accountability, and improve sustainable democracy.
Delimitations
Researchers are faced with different constrictions that limit the findings of their studies. This research will be faced by a number of factors that limit the accuracy or the reach of the findings (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009). These are categorized into assumptions, and limitations of the research.
Limitations
The researcher is faced by different forms of limitations. First, the researcher’s reach is limited to the data available on the ground. Much of the information that would be helpful to the researcher is either unrecorded or secretly held by the government. This limits the ability of the researcher to extrapolate accurate conclusions on the subject matter (Guest, 2012).
Second, financial constraints constitute a considerable limitation to the research. While the researcher could be able to carry out a countrywide extensive research, financial constraints limit their reach (Guest, 2012). A countrywide research could require millions in funds and a considerable number of personnel. Financial limitations reduce the reach and application of the research. The research findings cannot be specifically applied across Nigeria since they are generalized based on the data collected on a national level
CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review
This chapter undertakes a critical review of the literature on party politics, political parties, democracy, and the challenges they face. The chapter as much as possible concentrates on the whole issue of party politics and the challenges of sustainable democracy in developing countries. However, other democracies in the world are also considered where necessary. Leading world democracies such as the US and Western Europe are largely used as examples of sustainable democracy and are contrasted with those emerging democracies in most developing nations.
Political Parties and Democracy
The role that political parties play in democracy has been covered extensively in the literature (Springer, 2011). Political parties do play a very important role in democracy in general. However, they have to play an even bigger role if this democracy has to be sustainable. In fact they are believed to be part and parcel of democracy; meaning that without political parties there could hardly be sustainable democracy (Springer, 2011).
The issue that has been of concern over the past has been the exact manner in which political parties form an integral part of democracy. According to Ujo (2000), political parties are integral parts of democracy and the democratic process mainly because they compete in elections. However, they also mobilize citizens behind particular policies and visions of society.
Finally, the performance of political parties in the legislature means that they offer their citizens the opportunity to make choices that are meaningful regarding governance. Political parties therefore enable citizens to find good avenues through which they can participate in politics. They also provide citizens with the opportunities to shape the future of their countries (Ujo, 2000).
The arguments presented here are well accepted or are considered mainstream thought. First and foremost, political parties are mainly the means through which citizens get to rally behind certain visions of society. While it is true that citizens could possibly rally behind societal visions without necessarily doing so through political parties or being led by politicians, it can nonetheless be denied that political parties have the kind of marshalling necessary to ensure mass adherence of the citizenry to a given agenda, be it political or economic.
Secondly, the author contends that political parties are integral components of democracy because of or by virtue of their participation in the legislature. Democracy has been defined in one way as ‘the rule of the people by the people for the people’ (Olken, 2010). Therefore, democracy entails, among other aspects, having self-rule or self-governance. No citizens could say they are truly democratic if they are under the rule of some other foreign entities or persons. Self-rule is in turn only possible where the people made their own laws, or at least take part in the process of making laws. Having own laws and/or participating in the lawmaking process is seen as great milestone in democracy (Olarinmoye, 2008).
At the height of the independence movement in Africa, for instance, a common feature was the increased pressure on colonial masters and their governments to allow African leaders to take part in the process of making their own laws or laws for their nations (Olarinmoye, 2008). British-ruled nations in Africa were taken to Lancaster in the UK to take part in drafting new constitutions for their nations. When the pressure for self-rule increased, African leaders were no longer content with simply participating in the lawmaking process but demanded that they be left free to make their own laws without any interference from the colonialists. This underscores the importance of people’s participation in the lawmaking process, the making of their own laws (Olarinmoye, 2008).
Yet for the most part, it cannot be denied that only politicians are usually assured of taking part in the lawmaking processes of their countries. Elected representatives of the people often assembly in the legislature where they make laws affecting the people. This way, they make the laws on behalf of the citizens and so the citizens have a say in the manner in which they are governed (Chen & Redner, 2005).
For politicians to take part in the legislature, they have to be members of political parties. Only political parties than are elected to represent the people in the legislature will get the opportunity to do so. It is only in very rare circumstances that other entities that are not political parties take part in the lawmaking process or participate in the legislature (Chen & Redner, 2005).
According to Matlosa (2007) whose arguments are in support of those of Ujo (2000), any strong and sustainable democracy is solely dependent not just on the existence of political parties but also on the ability of these political parties to function well. While he is underscoring the importance of political parties in sustainable democracy, he is also insisting that the aspect of functionality is no less important. This is because the issue of existence of political parties is no longer a challenge for the world in general and Africa in particular. The major challenge faced is that the existing political parties are not functioning well enough to deliver on the expectations that people have of them.
Matlosa (2007) further argues that there other entities that succeed at bringing together diverse interest than political parties. Furthermore, he argues, these political parties are the ones, which recruit and present candidates. Finally, political parties are engaged in the development of policy proposals that are competing. It is only through the development of competing policy proposals that citizens truly have the opportunity to make choice. Since ability to make free and unforced choices is a critical element of democracy, Matlosa believes that there would be no democracy, sustainable or otherwise, if there were no political parties. However, he cautions, the political parties must be well-functioning or they would be as good as non-existent.
Having argued that way, however, it is imperative that the sentiments by Ujo (2000) be countered. First and foremost, citizens can still participate, and have actually participated, in the legislative process without using political parties. That is, political parties are not the only channel through which citizens can take part in the legislature. Laws are made in virtually every other place and not exclusively in the legislature.
Common law, for instance, proceeds from the actions and traditions of the people. Only legislative or written laws originate from the legislature and require political parties and politicians to be enacted. Constitutional laws, for instance, have been and continue being formulated outside legislatures. Therefore, it is not entirely true that political parties are integral parts of democracy because they take part in the legislature.
Another reason why Ujo (2000)’s argument is not entirely true is that not all political parties are democratic and offer citizens the aforementioned opportunities. If anything, some political parties have depicted behaviour and tendencies that are anything but democratic. For such political parties, their interests are solely in the service of the interests of the leadership and have no concern for the citizens they purport or are supposed to be representing.
While they are supposed to be vehicles through which citizens openly campaign for public office, for example, some political parties do not allow such free participation. Instead they limit participation by citizens, imposing on the people requirements and conditions they cannot meet (Ukiwo, 2003). Therefore, although they purport to be advancing democracy, such political parties actually undermine democracy.
The gist of the argument is that not all political parties are democratic. Even those that are democratic are not so all the time. Instead, there are times when they knowingly or unknowingly engage in undemocratic practices. This happens mostly when the parties engage in the service of selfish interests rather than the interests of the citiz.
Africa and Foreign Aid: Implications for Democracy
In the context of Africa, sustainable democracy has been impacted by the continent’s myriad of social-economic challenges. Notable ones include poverty, disease, and civil conflict. The problems affecting African as a continent have forced it to remain largely dependent on donors for aid. While this is important for the survival and continued establishment of the continent and its people, it is nonetheless detrimental to the continent’s aspirations to achieve sustainable democracy (Dunning, 2004).
To a very large extent, there remains to be a close existing relationship between the country receiving foreign aid and the funding country or institution. More often than not, foreign aid has come to Africa to achieve other goals other than that for which it is actually intended, or it should be for. Oftentimes, foreign aid to Africa targets specific regimes. So regime type in the recipient countries of Africa greatly determines the nature, extent, and quantity of aid given or received (Dunning, 2004).
The common practice in Africa has been for pro-democracy states of the West to give aid only to those regimes that are regarded as favouring and/or promoting democratic ideologies in their administrations. Those regimes that undermine democracy in any way have often been punished by aid cuts or even aid embargoes. On the other hand, less democratic states of the world, especially those in the East, have often govern aid to Africa without caring about democracy (
More recently, China has been offering Africa some of the biggest foreign aid ever (Fleck &Kilby, 2010). Mostly in the form of Official Development Assistance (ODA) Chinese foreign aid to Africa has raised concerns about its ultimate impacts to the continent and especially with regard to democratic ideals. Unlike the West which has tied foreign aid to political, social, and economic reforms that include or encourage the fostering of democracy, China’s aid to Africa is based solely on economic issues (Dunning, 2004).
Some of Africa’s best known autocratic ands undemocratic states have been among the leading recipients of Chinese aid. These include Sudan, Madagascar, Sierra Leone, and even Nigeria. Although some of these states have recently begun expanding their democratic space, they have been long recipients of Chinese aid (Fleck & Kilby, 2010).
According to Dunning (2004), the impact of foreign aid on one’s democracy is therefore as varied as there are different donors. Generally, though, aid given to autocratic states or that is not tied to any political, economic, and/or social reforms have greatly undermined African democracy. This is because such aid has tended to encourage the concerned states to shrink their democratic space instead of expanding it. This is because they are not under any form of pressure to reform or change their approach to governance (Wright & Winters, 2010).
Such states as Sudan have remained largely undemocratic because their leaders have no need for aid from the West where the push for democratic reforms has been coming from. Instead, Sudan receives its aid from China; and since China is only concerned about the oil and other economic benefits it gets from Sudan in exchange, there has been no pressure on Sudan’s regime to adopt democratic ideologies for the betterment of its people (Wright & Winters, 2010).
While it is considered unethical and even immoral to deny Africa aid on the basis of the continent’s failure to embrace democracy, it is in many ways helpful. For a long time since its independence, Africa has struggled to reinvent itself. While most of its political leaders fought against colonialism with a promise to the people that they needed freedom and self-rule, no sooner had the colonialists left than the new African leaders reneged on their promises to take Africa towards freedom. Yet there can be no such freedom without democracy.
International institutions like the international Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have especially helped African states embrace sustainable democracy. This has been because they have insisted on the recipient states to not only show their good governance structures but also their capacity and willingness to ensure that aid trickles down to those who need it most (Fleck & Kilby, 2010).
Conditionality of aid to Africa has also been greatly affected following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This has in turn affected democracy – or the likelihood of attaining it – in Africa (Fleck & Kilby, 2010). During the Cold War, the rivalry between the East and the West (US versus Soviet Union) served to make aid conditioning less significant – if significant at all. At that time, the only thing that mattered for both sides was to get supporters allied with them. Conditioning of aid was therefore relaxed or even left out altogether (Wright & Winters, 2010).
Even then, it was only the US that actually set conditions in place for receiving foreign aid especially in exchange for democratic reforms. The Soviet Union itself had no democracy of its own that it could pass on (Wright & Winters, 2010). It is therefore no wonder that it never really had anything valuable other than adoption of communism to use as a precondition for offering foreign aid.
The end of the Cold War marked a significant transformation in the way foreign aid conditioning is undertaken. For the first time ever, the US could use foreign aid conditioning almost unabated (Fleck & Kilby, 2010). It had the right to ask recipient states to act in a certain way or stay content without American aid. In essence, the ethical issues and debates aside, US foreign aid has since 1989 been conditioned and provided based largely on ability or at least willingness of recipient states and regimes to adopt democratic principles (Fleck & Kilby, 2010).
In Africa and a few other parts of the developing world, political leaders hardly ever willingly leave power (Dabashi, 2012). They require either forceful eviction through coups or natural eviction through death in office. The recent events in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) could best attest to this. The Arab Spring that swept through this region was in most ways caused by a political leadership that simply refused to go away or let go of power (Brownlee, Masoud & Reynolds, 2013).
In most, if not all, of the affected countries, the leaders have or had been in power for very long periods of time. Such an extended stay in power cannot be said to be democratic. It took the kind of revolution that characterized the Arab Spring and subsequent prosecution and conviction to get a number of such leaders out of power and for democracy to be achieved (Brownlee et al., 2013). Yet many others are still clinging to power – some using the very donor aid that was supposed to bring about democracy (Brownlee et al., 2013).
Egypt is a notable case. For years, the country has been a major recipient of donor aid both from the US and the Soviet Union. Prior to the 1979 peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt was on the side of the Soviet Union and was among the major recipients of Soviet aid in the Middle East and Africa. After the peace agreement was signed, however, Egypt joined ranks with the US. It has been receiving US aid, economic, military, and social ever since (Brownlee et al., 2013).
While the US has been at the forefront championing democracy in Africa, the Middle East, and other parts of the world using foreign aid as a condition for instance in the case of Egypt, Cuba and South Africa show that this approach to aid does not work (Brownlee et al., 2013). Either way, US and Western aid to Egypt has not served to bring about democracy at all. It took Egyptians themselves in 2011 to bring about democracy, although it is a struggling form of democracy (Dabashi, 2012).
Therefore, aid conditioning does not necessarily bring about democracy. It actually undermines it. Mubarak was described by Arab critics as a puppet of the US and the West by the manner in which he relied on their aid in exchange for cooperating with Israel. Rather than use the aid to actually equip his country and promote democracy, he used it to establish himself in power such that it was not easy to remove him. He sidelined and oppressed all those who were opposed him (Dabashi, 2012).
The result was that there was no real challenge to his rule. Even when he purported to conduct elections, these were entirely sham elections with only one party, Mubarak’s, taking part or having the upper hand (Dabashi, 2012). This was the clearest show of how aid conditioning could undermine democracy rather than strengthen it.
The State of Democracy in Africa
From the outset, it is important to consider some of the key provisions or principles of democracy, sustainable or otherwise. The principle of majority rule and minority rights is perhaps the most challenging to democracies (Chen &Redner, 2005). This principle means that the majority of people in the country have their way as long as it does not diminish the rights of the minority. Democracy acknowledges that it is impossible to satisfy every person in the country. The right approach is to satisfy the majority, while ensuring that the minority is reasonably treated. The challenge with this system is that minority rights may be against majority opinion (Soludo, 2005).
A sustainable democracy is supposed to maintain a balance between the majority’s right to rule and the minority’s rights (Dabashi, 2012). An important clarification in this principle is that the majority or minority does not refer to any particular aspect of differentiation such as ethnic group or religion; rather, it incorporates all ideologies under determination by citizens. For instance, if a country’s main religion is Christianity, it must recognize and protect Islam, Hindu, and other religious inclinations (Soludo, 2005).
Democracy is mainly a trial and error system that recognizes its own limitations and seeks to find sensible solutions. This principle assumes that most of the time, the majority is right. This means that when any policy is under determination, the majority’s opinion and choice is presumed to be right. This approach has supported many developed democracies well. In any election, as provided by other canons of democracy, every person is allowed to vote relative to the law (Chen & Redner, 2005).
This principle is vital for democracy since it determines where the opinions and choices of democracy reach and how minorities are protected. Without this principle, there would be oppression and discrimination on multiple levels across a democracy. This means that since people do not always agree on issues, every person is in a minority group at one point in time (Chen & Redner, 2005).
This canon ensures that every person agrees with the opinion of the majority, given that their minority rights are protected. This system is not perfect, but it has worked noticeably well, considering opposite cases of minority rule. Minority rule is characteristic of high levels of dissatisfaction and abuse of power. A good case is the South African apartheid rule (Chen & Redner, 2005).
The sustainability of democracy especially in the context of Africa has been a much debated issue. There have been concerns that while everyone seems to be advocating for sustainable democracy, there is no evidence – or questions remain – about the benefits that such democracy could have or has actually had in Africa (Soludo, 2005).
As with many other things that nations and people seek out, it is only to the extent that something is deemed or proven to be beneficial that it can be pursued with good intentions. Otherwise, goals might not be pursued at all, and where there is such pursuance, the true intentions could not be disclosed.
The author wonders if Nigeria could be one of the places on the African continent where democracy, sustainable or otherwise, is being forced on a people who have no understanding of its merits. He also wonders if is it possible that as a result of this, African leaders and nations are only pretending to be embracing democracy when in actual sense they are fighting it. These are is two important issues that need to be addressed.
Unfortunately, there has been minimal, if any, literature and studies focusing on this very issue. Instead, most studies touching on African democracy or on democracy in Africa have tended to focus a lot on the challenges that Africa faces while embracing sustainable democracy. Other studies have concentrated on seeking to point out the reasons why Africans have not been able to embrace democracy. While all these are undoubtedly helpful in understanding democracy in Africa, they have ignored one of the most pertinent issues that need to be tackled: the importance of democracy to Africa.
Democracy in Africa will become sustainable only if, and when, Africans as a people come to understand and consciously accept that democracy is for their benefit (Ojo, 2006). They could be allowed conscious decisions about whether or not to embrace democracy. Like many other aspects on the continent, such as conflict, disease, and general underdevelopment, what Africa needs, when it comes to sustainable democracy, is what has been described as ‘homemade’ solutions and initiatives.
If Africans can understand the value of democracy, then there would be no challenge regarding democracy’s sustainability on the continent. As it stands, most of the challenges of sustainable democracy in Africa stem directly or indirectly from Africans’ lack of total acceptance of democracy. This lack of total acceptance is in part attributable to failure by pro-democracy lobbyists and campaigners to make the benefits of democracy clearly understandable to the people of the continent in general and their political leaders in particular.
Therefore, while most African nations might appear to be pursuing democracy, there is the risk that they simply are putting up a show; they are acting, but deep within them there are no convictions. Yet, they cannot be blamed because they have not fully come to understand democracy’s benefits and so have not embraced it.
Why Democracy Does Not Work in Africa
The issue of African democracy is hardly ever complete or exhaustive without reference being made to the state of democracy in the world. To this end, the West has been modelled as the epitome of good governance and sustainable democracy (Sung, 2004). Africa, on the other hand, has been lagging behind in embracing democracy. In fact Africa has been labelled the continent of dictatorship, corruption, and general lack of democracy. This has often led many to conclude – whether rightly or wrongly – that Africa’s problems are the result of lack of democracy. In response to this, the West has been pushing Africa and its leaders to embrace democracy as a way of helping fight its myriad of challenges that include civil strife, underdevelopment, disease, poor governance, institutionalized and political corruption, and poverty (Ojo, 2006).
While the efforts by the West – or led by the West – to ‘democratize’ Africa are welcome and even important, it is about time really serious questions were asked about why democracy has not worked in Africa to produce the desired results. For Africa is not new to democracy given that the involvement of the West in Africa date way back to the colonial era. Although during the colonial era advancement of democracy might not have been the main focus of the Westerners (Sung, 2004), there is no denying that the West has had more than enough time to democratize Africa.
To date, though, the continent remains at a crossroads in terms of democracy. Either the democratic institutions present and often imposed by the West have long ceased to work to deliver what is required of them or many African states and their leaders are still grappling with this new and ‘foreign’ doctrine.
This is the dilemma that Africa faces: it is told that democracy is a necessary tool for the resolution of its challenges. Yet practical examples show that Africa’s problems have persisted – or even increased – in the era of democracy on the continent (Fleck & Kilby, 2010). So whether to embrace or to let go of democracy is still a question African leaders – especially the political leaders – still have to grapple with.
Therefore, it can be argued here that before Africa is blamed for refusing or failing to embrace democracy, serious consideration needs to be given to the whole subject of African democracy. A notable area of interest should be why democracy has not worked in various countries within and without Africa, both for the leaders and citizens.
It follows naturally that if Africa and its leaders have realized that democracy does not work for them, then they would be resisting it – albeit indirectly. After all it would be suicidal for the continent to embrace a doctrine that they do not believe in or that is counterproductive. So the question should no longer be whether or not democracy works for Africa. The question, instead, should be why democracy does not work for Africa.
This question has indeed been asked by a number of scholars. Ukiwo (2003), for instance, argues that the reason why democracy and even good governance are not successfully entrenched in Africa is the continent’s socioeconomic and political challenges. Notable among these challenges are negative historical precedents, excessive poverty, entrenched corruption, the centralization of both economic and political power, and the general state of underdevelopment. In essence, Ukiwo argues that the very problems which the West expected would be solved by democracy and good governance are the hindrances of democracy in Africa.
The question that arises is how such problems hinder rather than enhance democracy. It would have been expected that Africa’s problems would drive the continent to seek more open governance structures and seek to have democracy. However, and using the example of underdevelopment in Africa, Ukiwo (2003) argues that there is one main feature of underdevelopment which effectively hinders democracy from taking root not just in Africa but anywhere where underdevelopment is to be found. This feature, however, is especially practical and rampant in Africa.
The feature is that all the economies of underdeveloped countries are often linked structurally with the economies of the advanced, capitalist nations. This linkage effectively means that the various economic activities that are undertaken in the developed countries almost always produce beneficial results and outcomes for only the advanced capitalist countries. On the contrary, the underdeveloped countries only get the very negative results out of these economic activities (Ukiwo, 2003).
So here is a situation where the generators of economic activities get fewer benefits from the activities than the developed nations. The overall and ultimate outcome is that the underdeveloped countries get only poorer while the developed ones grow richer. In an atmosphere of poverty and the misery that the poverty brings about, it is impossible for the people to seek out democracy or demand for good governance. This is because all people are preoccupied with seeking ways of survival from the biting poverty, hunger, and general underdevelopment (Ukiwo, 2003).
Meeting basic needs clearly has to be prioritized over any other requirement – least of all political participation. For many Africans, therefore, it is more important to find ways of putting food on the table and sustaining their families and dependents than participating in political processes. It is no doubt that democracy on the continent remains largely a mirage.
The arguments by Ukiwo (2003) ring true to this author, at least in most ways. First of all, arguments can be made that the economies of Africa are linked to those of the West. This has made it possible for economic activities undertaken in Africa to benefit the advanced capitalist nations of the West. This can be seen as having impoverished Africa and led to many other problems which further hinder Africans from even thinking about democracy, let alone embracing it.
Whether this relationship in structural linkages between the economies of underdeveloped countries and those of developed countries has been purposely designed by the West itself or not remains debatable. One thing is clear and factual, though. This is that the colonial masters effectively set the stage for Africa to become perennially lined with the West (Sung, 2004). This linkage was such that Africa was to benefit the West even when it did not want to. From the laws that were formulated in Africa by the colonialists to the forms and/or systems of governance and administration used, it was clear that colonialists wanted to make the continent dependent on them forever (Sung, 2004).
The West gets the oil from Nigeria, and in the process creates an acute shortage of the all-important resource within Nigeria. This shortage then breeds all kinds of misery and poverty as the government is forced to put in place subsidies (Wright & Winters, 2010). The fuel subsidies in Nigeria have been responsible for the crippling of many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the country. Furthermore, these subsidies have resulted in massive corruption and poverty, misery and many other social ills that bedevil Nigerian society today. Yet such fuel subsidies would never have been put in place if Nigeria’s oil was not exported abroad by private oil companies to economically benefit the rich capitalist nations (Fleck & Kilby, 2010). Under such conditions, it is not possible for democracy to take root, or even to be contemplated seriously.
In support of Ukiwo (2003), Levinson (2010) argues that there is indeed a very close correlation between extreme underdevelopment and democracy. The same relationship also exists between underdevelopment and good governance. To this end, good governance is being linked to democracy (Jega, 2007).
Back to the relationship, though, Levinson (2010) argues that the stronger a society’s forces of production become through years of accumulation of more surpluses from the labour of its members the less democratic the society becomes. This is explained in terms of imbalances between the wealthier and poorer societies or states of the world – a kind of developed-underdeveloped divide.
When a society’s forces of production grow, it accumulates more surpluses from its members’ labour. Over time, the surplus value that gets extracted from society’s labour creates more wealth for some societies and not others. This basically means that some societies grow richer and wealthier while others grow poorer. The wealthier societies gain immense power and capacity to dominate the less wealthy or the poorer ones (Levinson, 2010).
While this domination as of itself and in itself could be commonplace and not negative, its negative consequences manifest when it is directed mainly at the acquisition of private economic gain. This is because such acquisition of private economic gain creates or establishes a relationship which is by nature imperialistic. Like all imperialistic relationships, prosperity and wealth are created for the developed countries while all the underdeveloped countries get are under development and poverty. It is these two – poverty and underdevelopment – that stand in the way of any democratization processes and endeavors (Levinson, 2010).
Once again, this reinforces the earlier argument that what African states need in terms of democratization is their own version of democracy – a version that starts – or is driven by – Africans’ desire to overcome their own challenges using their own homemade solutions. The more and longer the West meddles in African affairs – political, social, and economic – the lesser the chances there are for Africa to achieve and sustain democracy.
Instead, the West has to realize that Africa needs to make its own conscious decisions. It needs to choose what it believes is ideal for it and to pursue policies based on those decisions. The only relationship that ought to exist between African states and the Western ones ought to be based purely on mutual benefit (
However, there is at least one more way why democracy is not taking root in Africa. It is very true that democracy in Africa continues to be a challenge because it is often associated with the West – Africa’s former colonial masters. This basically means that democracy is regarded by most Africans as a possible instrument of Western colonization (Wright & Winters, 2010). Having suffered immensely in the hands of their colonial masters; and having lost a lot of resources to the colonialists in the process (Ojo, 2006), Africa states and African leaders have learnt to be cautious of everything that is Western. Unfortunately, this includes even the good aspects.
For the Africans, the Westerners always have a hidden agenda, and the West’s insistence and even attempts to impose democracy and good governance practices on Africa is largely regarded as a move aimed at getting something from Africa (Wright & Winters, 2010). This is why democracy is being resisted. To some extent, this notion is contestable because lack of democracy has been witnessed in African countries that do not align with the west as well as those countries that are aligned with China, a country that does not care much about democracy.
To a very large extent, Africa has been forced to accept even the lowest form of democracy because it has been tied with Western incentives such as aid and infrastructural development (Wright & Winters, 2010). Otherwise, it is highly possible that no African leader would permit the West to come back to it with tales about democracy.
Since, however, democracy at least helps the political leaders of the continent to alleviate some of the continent’s people’s worst forms of suffering, they just take it. They have no choice (Ojo, 2006). However, they agree to embrace democracy not because they really want it or believe in it but because they have no alternative. This could the other reason why democracy in Africa has remained a distant dream.
Impacts of Politics and Corruption on Sustainable Democracy
Sung (2004) argues that though it may be hard to believe, there are a number of nations in the developing world where politics and corruptions are almost synonymous. So distrusted by the public are the politicians in such states that they have almost become resigned to being just that – corrupt politicians.
According to Sung (2004), Africa and much of the developing world are notable examples where political office has been used to advance malpractices such as corruption. Rather than using political office to facilitate aid and assistance to the political constituencies they represent, many politicians have turned public resources and public political offices into avenues to enrich themselves and their cronies.
While the subject of corruption has been canvassed and deliberated on several occasions, hardly ever has there been a focus on the implications corruption has for political process, democracy, and the overall state of health of a nation. According to Gerring& Thacker (2004), corruption is a vice that raises a whole new set of questions and issues regarding the relationship that exists or ought to exist between both the state and the society and between power and wealth. They are of the view that corruption affects sustainable democracy because of its impacts on both political processes and political outcomes.
According to Gerring and Thacker (2004) corruption has tended to accompany political and economic changes that are undertaken in a rapid manner. However, they note, the significance of corruption has been as varied as there are different societies. That is, corruption’s significance varies from one society to another. These views are supportive of the initial argument that there are societies in the world where corruption has become almost synonymous with political power, political office, and politics. In such societies, there is every reason to believe that sustainable democracy cannot be achieved in much the same way as it is achieved in societies where there is no or minimal corruption. This is because corruption indeed affects the political process by arm-twisting the course of justice.
When politicians use corruption to achieve or attain political power and to serve several other interests of their own, they tend to be less accountable to society – if accountable at all. Corruption basically acts as a kind of buffer that shields corrupt politicians from the wrath of the public when and where such wrath is justified. Under normal circumstances, democracy is attainable and sustainable only in cases where politicians are accountable fully to the citizens and where the whole political process is owned and driven by the people.
Unfortunately, corruption tends to so empower politicians financially and politically that they have little or no need to conform to the aspirations and desires of the citizenry (Armstrong, 2005). Such politicians will therefore tend to disregard the rule of law and act based on the power they have. This power, fortunately for them but unfortunately for the citizens is derived not from the people but from monetary resources. Since there can be no democracy, sustainable or otherwise, without the full participation of the people, corruption serves to erode any democratic gains made in societies where it is endemic (Armstrong, 2005).
Corruption has been responsible for changes in regimes in numerous nations (Sung, 2004). Some regimes have benefitted from corruption while others have suffered because of it. It is as a result of corruption that some regimes have ascended to power while others have been deposed. Some politicians have even used corruptions to undermine their opponents and so get political power that they would not have obtained otherwise, in the absence of corruption (Sung, 2004). To this end, therefore, there can be no contention whatsoever regarding the importance of corruption as both a trade and political issue in not only nations but in international organizations as well. In fact, corruption both as a trade and political issue has been, and continues to increase over time (Sung, 2004).
According to Canache and Allison (2005), the fact that there are other forces that affect and have often affected the wellbeing of nations makes it quite risky and even dangerous for corruption as a single issue to be used to explain, by way of justification or denial, a lot related to sustainable democracy and party politics. This basically means that these other factors that are endemic in society make it hard to accurately single out corruption and its effects and state categorically and without any fear of contradiction that these effects are caused by corruption Canache and Allison (2005).
The words of Collin Leys (Johnson (1997) best sum up this argument: “It is natural but wrong to assume that the results of corruption are always both bad and important” (p. 222). Nonetheless, and as Johnson (1997) argues, corruption is a major force affecting political processes and sustainable democracy.
These are just some of the impacts of corruption on the political process and on democracy. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to accurately and decisively measure corruption or even gauge its actual impacts on sustainable democracy (Canache & Allison, 2005). Many are the times when the effects caused by corruption have been falsely taken to be those caused by other factors. Similarly, problems or effects caused by other factors have been falsely attributed to corruption (Canache & Allison, 2005).
This problem of distinguishing between corruption and other forces has been, unfortunately, more of a political issue than has been a sociological or even economic one (Canache& Allison, 2005). Like all other political issues, which could prove very hard to independently analyze, corruption has proven hard to contextualize and subject to proper analysis. Since even defining corruption has been difficult, this has had far-reaching negative implications on attempts to determine and reduce the effects of corruption on sustainable democracy.
These arguments underscore one of the most challenging and endemic problems in the developing world in general and Africa in particular. Most African states have corrupt political leaders who thrive not on the unwillingness of the masses to tackle corruption but on the political nature of corruption (Shah, 2006). Quite often than not, political office is associated with individuals and their tribesmen. Therefore, any efforts to hold to account political office holders suspected or found to be engaging in corruption almost always results in the whole tribe resisting the move. Ultimately, corruption is politicized or socialized and so left to go unabated (Gerring & Thacker, 2004).
The State of Political Parties in Africa
The twin issues of political parties and party systems in Africa have been widely covered in the literature especially starting in the 21st century. One such notable commentator on this subject is Carbone (2007) who argues that there has been resurgence in party pluralism in Africa. According to him, the last decade of the 20th century and the first five or so years of the 21st century have seen Africa transform itself in ways that have been largely unprecedented.
One notable feature that Carbone (2007) concentrates on, however, is that multiparty politics in Africa as witnessed in the aforementioned period of time is not at all new. Instead, multiparty democracy is returning or making a comeback to Africa. For him, this is like a second birth for party pluralism in Africa; the first having been witnessed towards the end of colonialism on the continent.
According to Carbone (2007), party pluralism first emerged in Africa during the final stages of colonialism and especially on the eve of independence. This could have been because emerging from colonialism, there might have been an emergence of a variety of previously constrained political behavior and the emergence of political parties. This, according to him, was mainly during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Like other political dispensations whose origin was Western Europe, however, party pluralism at that time quickly fizzled out – almost as quickly as it had come about (Carbone, 2007).
According to Carbone (2007), this was because it was rejected by almost all African societies for its being a Western or European project. It was considered foreign and so frowned upon, not to be accepted for a long time after that. By the 1990s, however, there was enough goodwill politically for a number of African states to embrace democratic principles albeit with a lot of caution (Carbone, 2007).
The arguments of Carbone (2007) emphasize the aspect of Africa’s rejection of anything considered ‘foreign’ and therefore likely to have colonial undertones or effects. This has largely been covered in the preceding section. However, the arguments serve to reinforce the argument that democracy and what it entails is largely a failure in Africa because it is considered to a Western ideology and so one unsuited for Africa.
However, Carbone (2007) fails to accurately identify the reason why party pluralism failed to take root in Africa at the height of the independence struggles but almost succeeded at the turn of the century. To this end, a more probable explanation could be that during the 1950s and 1960s, the parties formed were largely aimed at helping fight colonialists. Indeed this period of time was characterized by massive political participation (Abizadeh, 2008). Many political parties were formed – and permitted – at least in part due to the need that was there for African states to fight their enemies who were the colonial masters (Abizadeh, 2008).
When the colonialists left, there must have been little – if any at all – need for party pluralism on the continent. All that was needed was a single political party that would guide the political agenda for every independent African state. At independence and long after that, single parties were the people’s preferred form of administration (Abizadeh, 2008). The resurgence of multiparty democracy in the 1990s and 2000s, however, the author argues that this could have been attributed to the realization by the people that single parties had evolved to take on characteristics similar to those of colonial rulers and parties.
As has been argued before, Africans have had a very nasty experience with colonialism and everything that reminds them of that experience is rejected outright. Even more likely to be rejected is anything that risks taking the people back to the times when rights and privileges were denied the people (Chen & Redner, 2005). This is undoubtedly, why African States experienced a resurgence of multiparty democracy and multiparty politics in the 1990s and 2000s.
At the time, most African states must have had achieved and practically tasted and tested – first hand – what it felt like to be independent. They had tasted independence and self rule. Unfortunately for the majority of Africans, the new African leaders must have failed to meet the expectations of the people.
This author argues that political power must have been consolidated in the hands of the few who used it to isolate fellow Africans – and especially political competitors – rather than helping them. This must have prompted many nationalist sentiments and calls for multiparty politics and democracy. The desire must have been see all people taking part in governance and not single-party rule which was thought to be even more alienating of the people than the colonialists.
One just needs to consider the fate of most other political dispensations that had Europe as their origin to acknowledge that multiparty democracy could not hold in Africa as long as the people still believed that it was a Western Europe project and ideology. Such political dispensations include the modern state, representative government, and liberal constitutionalism. All these ended before they had even begun because Africans rejected them for being European ideologies (Chen &Redner, 2005).
There is no doubt that multiparty democracy in Africa had to wait for a time when Africans were convinced that they really needed it before it could be embraced. Even then, the African people had to be convinced fully that it would be to their benefit. Otherwise they would not accept it. Therefore, it must have been the realization of the people – not the imposition by the West – that multiple political parties would help them overcome at least some of their challenges that they started to embrace party pluralism starting in the 1990s and continued into the 21st century.
The rise and fall of military governments in Africa can be attributed directly and indirectly to the state of parties on the continent (Siollun, 2009). After independence, most African states had in place at least multiple parties that had helped bring about independence (Mansbridgeet al.,2010). Soon, however, especially when multiparty democracy failed to take root, most of the states in Africa opted for the one party system of administration. Many others ended up with military rule (Mansbridge et al.,2010).
As with any other peoples, however, Africans could not put up with military dictatorships for long. By the 1990s, the oppression that these regimes meted on the people had reached unprecedented levels (Møller & Skaaning, 2013). This is what laid the groundwork for the formation of many parties. Party pluralism could therefore be said to have come about as a result of the dissatisfaction of the people with their governments.
It can be argued further that this re-emergence of party pluralism in Africa was only possible because it had taken on an African form. In essence, Africa no longer believed that its multiple parties had any European element. In fact this democratization process has been described as the African version of the global ‘third wave’ (Møller & Skaaning, 2013). It was soon after multiparty democracy had been adopted in most African states during the late 1980s and 1990s that it soon became clear that Africa’s challenges of poverty, low levels of literacy, structural limitations, and acute state weakness would not permit democracy to thrive in Africa – at least not in the same way as it has thrived or was thriving in other parts of the world (Møller & Skaaning, 2013).
Origins of Democracy in Africa
Before there can be a thorough analysis and good understanding of the nature of democracy in Africa, it is imperative that the origins of democracy in Africa be understood. This is indeed one of the main subjects that have been covered relatively well in the literature. For instance, van de Walle (2000) argues that democracy in Africa is to be tied to the so-called African democratization wave of between 1989 and 1995. This has already been analyzed in the preceding sections.
In addition, though, van de Walle (2000) notes that the kind of democracy referred to here is the kind that can be seen in Africa even today, not the kind that almost came up during the need of the colonial era in the 1950s and 1960s. According to him, democracy in Africa was largely by design as it was by default. It was by default because it was inevitable that the repressive governments and leaders that came to power in Africa following the continent’s independence would at one time be forced out – or forced to make reforms to accommodate the views and aspirations of the people (van de Walle, 2000).
It was by design because several political leaders, especially those in or close to power, used democratic reforms as ways of cementing their grip on power. This they achieved by permitting constitutional changes that basically brought an end to the agitations of the much dissatisfied public. By having the constitution changed and competitive electioneering – albeit quite minimal and often unfair – permitted, most of these incumbents political leaders managed to hang onto power for longer than would have been possible if they had refused to listen to the aspirations and agitations of the people (van de Walle, 2000).
The arguments here are quite interesting and could be true. In fact, this one line of reasoning and arguing has long been forgotten or neglected in the discussions of African democracy and especially its emergence. Quite often than not, the assumption has been that democracy in Africa came about solely as a result of the pressure from the West. However, the author does not believe to be true.
Instead, democracy as seen in the late 1980s and early 1990s through formation of multiple political parties can be attributed largely to the need by political leaders of the time to stay in power. It was a kind of compromise between the pro-democracy activists and the conservative political leaders of the regime (Olarinmoye, 2008).
Although these political leaders actually allowed for the introduction of party pluralism, they still went ahead and adopt mechanisms and implemented policies that ensured that they were effectively shielded from any possible ouster from power. By cracking down on political opponents and those deemed to be opposed to their rule, these leaders still managed to hang to power even though they had been forced to introduce democratic reforms (Olarinmoye, 2008). It follows, then, that the kind of democracy that came about at that time could not really measure up to the true democracy as is measured by Western standards.
This was a truly African form of democracy where repressive political regimes still reined supreme while multiple parties went about their business (Olarinmoye, 2008). This kind of democracy, it can be argued, essentially only permitted for greater political expression but never went far enough to permit other aspects of democracy such as equality and fairness to take root.
Power Politics
In analyzing political parties and sustainable democracy in Africa, argues Olken (2010), a notable focal point has always been the length of presidential terms. According to him, power for most African leaders has been used to denote something unlike it in most of the developed world. For Africa and its political leaders, power is used as a tool and instrument not to necessarily advance the interests of the people but the interests of the few elitists close to the power (Olken, 2010).
Since power is used to achieve what can be described as sustenance for the political leaders, it has been quite difficult for political leaders in Africa to let go of power (Olken, 2010). In fact it is almost only in Africa and a few other developing nations where political leaders, especially heads of states and/or government, such as in Middle East and Russia, tend to cling to power for as long as it is possible to do so legally. That aside, these political leaders often stifle any efforts aimed at democratization. This essentially makes them some of the biggest threats to democracy (Olken, 2010).
Views expressed here are important and – even at their very barest minimum – clearly depict one of the major challenges to sustainable democracy in Africa. It is not hard to agree with Olken (2010) that most African leaders have become what can be described as ‘power hungry’. This hunger for power has seemingly obscured their vision of a continent that is prosperous, peaceful, and healthy. Instead, it has made them to become preoccupied with seeking and finding ways of keeping themselves in power. This is often at the expense of sustainable democracy.
Democracy has as one of its key tenets ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of only a few (Siollun, 2009). Even if this was to be the case, then it ought not to be for a long period of time. In essence, devolution of political power – especially at the national level – is a prerequisite for democracy. By hanging on to power for periods as long as over 30 years, African political leaders not only stand in the way of democracy but set themselves up for more ruthless forms of removal from power such as coups.
According to Brownlee et al. (2013), if the current wave of protests that has swept and continues sweeping across parts of North Africa and the Middle East are anything to go by, then it can no longer be denied that the political leaders intent on clinging on power for a very long time are a threat to democracy. In the protests, commonly referred to as the Arab Spring, the main target have been the political leaders – mostly heads of states and governments – who have stayed in power for very long period of time (Brownlee et al., 2013).
They include the presidents of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Indonesia. The leaders of these four states have since been forced to leave office because they had overstayed. Others like Syria’s Basher al-Assad are still struggling to remain in power even in the wake of a bloody civil war in the country (Brownlee et al., 2013).
It can also be argued, by reference to the Arab Spring, that political leaders in Africa and the developing world in general tend to be really out of touch with the real and true aspirations of the people. It is quite surprising that head of state would rather have thousands of people through a politically-instigated crackdown on pro-democracy protesters than relinquish in a peaceful way (Brownlee et al., 2013). That some of the concerned nations have been boasting of being at the forefront in undertaking democratic reforms is even more disheartening (Dabashi, 2012).
The author believes that what Africa needs are true democrats who are able to really understand and appreciate the needs of the people at any given time. These needs do no not include clinging to power. If political leaders will refuse to let go of political power and political office, then democracy in the developing world will remain to be theoretical for many years to come.
What is even more discouraging is the fact that most of the political leaders who undermine democracy in Africa by clinging to power are the same ones who came to power on a platform of instituting and leading democratic reforms (Dabashi, 2012). Once they get the power, they quickly turn around and use the power to shield themselves from their political opponents and the public. Therefore, African democracy can be said to face not just the problem of lack of proper electoral processes but a similar or even more significant lack of goodwill on the part of political leaders.
It cannot be denied that the world’s most advanced democracies have very clear and effective mechanisms of ensuring that the electioneering process is fair, free, and balanced. They also ensure that political power can be transferred from losers to winners in a peaceful and efficient way (Armstrong, 2005). This is arguably one area where African nations seeking democracy ought to significantly improve on. There have to be clear ways of ensuring that incumbents relinquish and hand over power to new-elects without fail. Any other thing short of this will not amount to democracy at all.
The argument here is that if democracy is to become sustainable in Africa, there have to be ways of ensuring that power is handed over peacefully. So far, the focus of democracy in the African context has tended to ignore the importance of smooth political transitions. Instead, much focus has been on the electioneering process itself or lack of it (Armstrong, 2005).
In African states, democracy has even come to be taken to be the practice of having elections (Armstrong, 2005). Yet without a specific time frame being set aside for conducting these elections, there cannot be true democracy even if the elections themselves are free and fair. This is because elections can be conducted and a winner found (Armstrong, 2005). Unless the winners can ascend to power and the losers descend, however, democracy remains just a distant hope.
Nations such as Madagascar and, more recently, Kenya have been plagued with post-election violence resulting from refusal by incumbents to hand over power even when there is clear evidence of the incumbents having lost lections (Freitag & Stadelmann-Steffen, 2010). It is therefore imperative – if democracy has to be sustainable in Africa – for smooth political transitions to be carried out. Yet this cannot possibly occur without first understanding what makes presidents, prime ministers, and other political leaders not to concede defeat or to simply refuse to let go of power.
When the French monarch, Louis XIV, famously declared that he was the state, many might have taken those words with utter simplicity. Yet there have had far-reaching implications for other leaders in the world. It not that Louis XIV has become a hero but that his words resonate with many others political leaders especially those ruling in Africa (Freitag & Stadelmann-Steffen, 2010).
In fact it can be argued that the most likely reason why African political leaders – at least the vast majority of them – would not want to let go of power is that they have developed the false notion that they are the state (Freitag & Stadelmann-Steffen, 2010). They believe – falsely or rightly so – that since they took part or actually led the political movements that ultimately brought independence (or even democracy) to their nations, these nations belong to them and their families. So they will not permit anyone else other than them or a member of their families to rule (Mansbridge et al., 2010).
This argument supports the earlier one that most of the political leaders in Africa who cling to power for very long periods of time are more often than not those who fought for Africa’s liberation either from the colonialists or from the military and/or dictatorial regimes that followed the exit of colonialist. While it is such leaders – by virtue of their strong and almost unwavering belief in independence and even democracy – that would be expected to promote democracy, it is they that undermine it by refusing to let others govern in their place.
Notable African examples include Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe (still reigning since the country’s independence in 1980), Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi (deposed recently after over 30 years in power), and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak (also recently deposed having served as president for over 25 years). Others states with long serving presidents or heads of state include Cameroon, Uganda, Algeria, and Sudan, just to be mention a few (Howard, 2011).
There can be no denying that these leaders, at least most of them, have the common feature of having been leaders of various liberation movements in their countries (Howard, 2011). Yet they now refuse to let others reign in their place.
However, all is not lost for Africa. There have been a few role models when it comes to democratic leadership and especially when handing over power is concerned. Nelson Mandela served one four-year term as president of South Africa (Erdmann, 2007). He then stepped down in spite of pressure from his supporters to seek a second term. More recently, countries like Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia has become models of peaceful power transitions in Africa (Howard, 2011).
Organized Militias and their Impact on Sustainable democracy in Africa
According to Brown (2009), Africa has long been associated with conflicts. These conflicts range from those pitting nation against nation to those between people of the same nation. It is the latter, however, that is most rampant on the continent and which has had the most impact on the sustainability of democracy on the continent (Brown, 2009).
It is not that the former is not as effective. Civil war in Africa has continued to be a major stumbling block on efforts to entrench democracy. In a war zone or context, it is virtually impossible for democracy to take root. This is because most of the people, including the concerned government, are preoccupied with the war to consider or even as much as think about inclusive political processes (Brown, 2009).
Most African states are ethnically plural, argue Basedau& Stroh (2009). This means that it is quite hard, even impossible, for ethnically-instigated civil conflicts to be avoided. In fact, Africa’s intra- and inter-ethnic wars have largely been attributed to the continent’s ethnic pluralism. Not in many other parts of the world does one find such a rich mix of people of different communities, cultures, and tribes living so close together and pursuing quite different lifestyles. In such a context, it becomes quite hard to avert conflicts (Brown, 2009).
There can be no denying the fact that African states have a rich ethnic diversity. This has helped enhance the risk and actual occurrence of conflicts. However, these conflicts are not just caused by ethnic differences as has been argued above. Instead, there is evidence that other factors have contributed to the high prevalent rate of conflicts in Africa. One such factor is the existence of militia. Militia groups in countries like Nigeria, Somalia, and Liberia have been known to cause a lot of havoc in the respective countries. Some militia groups – such as the Boko Haram of Nigeria – have even been known to reach as far as Cameroon (Erdmann, 2007).
It cannot be said conclusively that these militias fight an ethnically instigated war. In fact it is rare to find militias that have ethnicity as the base of their cause. Instead, most militia groups in Africa are motivated by factors such as religion and poverty than by ethnicity. Boko Haram of Nigeria is a notable example. This Islamist militant group is fighting for the establishment of a separatist Nigerian state for Muslims. Otherwise it seeks to have Islamic law imposed in the nation (Erdmann, 2007).
Therefore, the correct argument ought to be that religion and ethnicity are among the major causes of militancy in Nigeria. However, other factors such as poverty, corruption, and other socioeconomic ills have been causes of conflicts in Africa.
Having argued that way, it is imperative to add that regardless of the actual cause of or motivation for conflicts in Africa these conflicts have impacted democracy negatively in most parts of the continent. The impacts on democracy brought about by these conflicts come about because democracy, development, and security often work together. In the absence of security, there is no development.
Subsequently, the lack of development is sure to hinder democracy by the same mechanisms discussed earlier. That is, underdevelopment causes democratic failure because democracy does not operate in a context of underdevelopment. Underdevelopment for African states lead them to be too concerned about their problems of development (poverty, disease, violence and others) to care about political participation.
So the relationship between militia groups and democracy in Africa is this: the militia groups unleash violence on their targets. This violence disrupts the normal way of life as people have to flee to find safe places to hide. As they flee, they cannot undertake their normal economic activities. This in turn causes poverty and general lack of development. In other cases, conflicts caused by armed militias destabilize whole tribes and communities. This exposes a very large number of people to the same problem of underdevelopment which in turns hampers democracy.
Alienating forms of violence have especially been rampant in Africa (Jega, 2007). These kinds of violence entail having rival militia groups alienating others from the mainstream economic channels. They are especially detrimental for development because they keep many people out of their normal economic and social welfare circles. This means, in effect, that vast groups of people cannot gain access to much-needed resources to forge ahead with life. This in turn impedes their ability and tendency to push for and actually take part in political processes.
The arguments above have been supported by many other empirical studies (Johnston, 1997; Berman, 2010; Ukiwo, 2003). There is evidence that there is a relationship that exists between security and democracy. Any action or inaction that threatens or compromises the security of the people – which is also the security of the nation – ultimately acts as an affront to democracy.
Here, there is no distinction between the poor or the rich (Ojo, 2006). Instead, everyone, regardless of the social status, requires security. In turn, security is a prerequisite for a nation’s development (Sung, 2004). Never has any society developed in the context of insecurity. Whether the insecurity is the result of civil war, general war, or war caused by militant groups, the result is that it leads to underdevelopment which in turn impedes democracy (Sung, 2004).
Security is important because it keeps all people safe from not just violence but also from intimidation while they are in their communities, schools, workplaces, and homes (Ojo, 2006). Security also secures property from damage and theft. Finally – and most importantly so – security is the only channel through which everyone is assured of access to systems that dispense justice in a speedy and fair manner and without any undue discrimination (Ojo, 2006). Without these, there could be no hope for democracy.
In arguing in this manner, it ought to be reckoned that a secure nation and general security can be attained in an atmosphere where democracy is thriving. That is, democracy ensures, at least to a very large extent and based on the Western view of democracy, that nations are free from insecurities which otherwise hamper economic development. The same democracy ensures that societies are at least less poor and that peace prevails (Ojo, 2006).
However, attaining this democracy has been the challenge. For Africa to overcome its insecurity challenges, the argument seems to be that it needs to become democratic. Yet the same democracy cannot be attained in a context of underdevelopment. This essentially means that democracy as currently constituted cannot be attained in most African states.
Impacts of Ethnicity on Democracy in Africa
In the preceding section, it has been argued and counter-argued that ethnicity alone is not a contributor to the proliferation of militia groups in Africa. However, ethnicity being a reality in Africa with some nations like Nigeria having over 300 different ethnic groups (Brown, 2009), has other implications for democracy other than the perpetration of violence and general promotion of insecurity and underdevelopment.
According to Berman (2010), African ethnicity has been used as the tool for achieving some form of collecting bargaining agreements. In Africa, everyone has a specific ethnic group to which he/she belongs. It is the ethnic group that acts both as a mechanism for seeking opportunities and for protecting vested interested for the members. Often, though not always, the larger the ethnic group one belongs to the more the bargaining power in terms of what people from the ethnicity can get (Berman, 2010).
For politicians, ethnicity has been the veil they use to cover up when they commit offenses (Basedau & Stroh, 2009). They quickly run back to the protection of their communities or ethnicity whenever they are under attack for committing crimes or violating provisions of the laws. Unfortunately, they get away with virtually anything if they convince their people (Berman, 2010).
The gist of the argument is that ethnicity has been used to undermine democracy by having people acting largely as communal or tribal groups as opposed to as independent-minded democrats. In times of elections, it is not surprising that voting patterns largely, if not mainly, follow tribal and/or ethnic affiliation (Elischer, 2008). Since tribes are regarded as the means to get power and so communal welfare, the tribe and/or community acts as a major determinant of the state of democracy in Africa (Basedau & Stroh, 2009).
It would be expected that voting and decision-making among the people should follow the merits themselves and be determined by whatever manifesto a political party or candidate adhered to (Elischer, 2008). This, unfortunately, is less important in Africa. In fact hardly ever do political parties and candidates have any manifestos. Those that have hardly stick to them. Instead, people almost always use tribal affiliations to seek and win power (Elischer, 2008). Once in power, they still use the same weapon to remain there as long as they deliver to the people: the members of the tribes concerned or the tribes they belong to (Basedau & Stroh, 2009).
In Africa, people trust so much the concept of ‘myownism’ to care much about true democracy (Basedau & Stroh, 2009). In an electioneering process, everyone wants his or her own candidate to win. This means the candidate that is from one’s tribe or region, or that is closest to him/her is voted for (Ojo, 2006). This, however, does not prevent candidates from the same tribe competing against one another in the elections. Nonetheless, the so-called ‘Big Man’ politics and patronage have emerged and today act as some of the commonest and most long-lasting links between the state and the communities (Elischer, 2008).
Those belonging to large communities such as the Yoruba of Nigeria or the Kikuyu of Kenya stand higher chances of getting a bigger share of the national cake (Elischer, 2008). This is because these communities’ sheer large size ensures that they are well represented in various levels of government. This higher representation, as is usually the norm even in the classic democracies across the world, guarantees the communities concerned of better things.
There is another way through which ethnicity undermines democracy in Africa. This is that ethnicity is largely or mainly linked to nationalism. Nationalism in Africa has a shared origin with ethnicity. Both are products of the colonization of the continent. People were forced to gang together as tribes and/or ethnicities to fight for their rights denied or taken away from them by the white settlers. Therefore, nationalism and ethnicity have often been closely associated.
Although hardly ever discussed in detail, it can no longer be denied that both ethnicity and nationalism in Africa have the same cause or seek to achieve the same goals (Elischer, 2008). These goals are grasping the control of state apparatus. This kind of control undermines democracy in that it is geared at elevating the ethnic group as opposed to the nation-state. The concept of ‘sons of the soil’ is so real in African politics that hardly will such a ‘man of the soil’ be rejected by his people (Basedau & Stroh, 2009).
In return, the ‘man of the soil’ is expected to deliver for the community or tribe. Bottom-line – it is worth arguing – is that ethnicity elevates the single community instead of the whole nation. This means that the attention shifts to the people to the ethnic group and its ‘sons’. Democracy is people-centred and not tribe-centred (Basedau & Stroh, 2009).
Yet these people cannot be blamed for their actions. They have rightly learnt – sometimes through the hard way – the fact that fairness in Africa is almost a distant dream that cannot be attained. They have subsequently risen up to bargain for their rights using the tribe or community. That is, they have grown to understand that only ‘one of their own’ in power – in high political office – can help them achieve what they seek in terms of development.
This could only mean one thing: that in Africa there is no equitable share of resources (Ukiwo, 2003). This includes public resources. Instead, resources get channelled and redirected to benefit a few people and their cronies. It is those with the highest bargaining power – those who can mobilize themselves into strong ethnic and/or religious groups who get to share more favourably in the national cake (Ukiwo, 2003).
There is every reason to believe and argue that the West detests this, and even uses it as the basis for wanting to impose its own democratic principles on Africa. The one thing that the West forgets or ignores is that it the colonial masters who made Africans that way. There were virtually no tribes and even nations in Africa prior to the coming of the colonialists (Siollun, 2009). The continent was united and acted as a single entity in almost anything they did.
For their own benefits – in order to better govern the Africans , the colonial masters partitioned Africa into nations, nations into ethnicities, and ethnic groups into more sub-units, clans and the like (Siollun, 2009). The strategy no doubt worked wonders for the colonial masters because they easily got what they wanted. A divided Africa was no match for the invading colonialists (Siollun, 2009).
When they left, argues Springer (2011), the colonialists never cared to unify Africa as it was before. This was because they still understood that there was a lot to be gained when Africa was divided than when it was unified (Springer, 2011).
Nonetheless, the argument here is that the ethnicity and the resultant ethnocentric nature of African politics and relations are to be blamed squarely on the Europeans, if anyone has to be blamed. Unfortunately, the ethnicity that the colonial masters instigated in Africa is now undermining the very democracy they seek to plant and even impose in Africa and on Africans.
Poverty, Underdevelopment and Democracy
There is another relationship that exists between poverty, underdevelopment, and democracy that has nothing to do with the structural linkages between developed and developing nations as was argued earlier in this review. This relationship is more direct and has been utilized by many politicians to undermine democracy. This is the relationship between poverty, underdevelopment, and democracy.
According to Springer (2011), poverty and underdevelopment, which often coexist, are both hindrances to democracy. Where they exist there can never be sustainable democracy. In Africa and much of the developing world, poverty remains a reality. With as many as half the populations of certain nations living on less than US$1 a day, poverty has produced magical results in its relationship with democracy. Therefore, people who are this poor, or worse, have little hope for anything else (Springer, 2011). They are daily engrossed in their own little struggles to survive. Fending for themselves and their families are actually their main, if not the only – preoccupation (Olken, 2010).
Politicians have in turn mastered the art of preying on the vulnerability of these poor people. With so small an amount of money, hardly enough to last a day anyway, these people are bought over to do as the politicians want (Olken, 2010). This can undoubtedly be termed as political corruption. In this context, however, this is more a poverty issue than it is a corruption one.
At times of elections, politicians are known to engage in acts of giving gifts to the poor and hungry. These actions were made famous by historical political figures such as Eva Peron and Imelda Marcos. These gifts are, supposed to be illegal as they pervert the course of justice (Olken, 2010). There is no way that democracy can be said to be thriving when there is no justice for all.
In most African democracies and states, there can never be said to be justice for all. This especially applies for those engaged in political competition. The richer a political contestant has been the more ‘justice’ he/she has received from the people because he/she is able to issue gifts to the people (Olarinmoye, 2008). With the vast majority of these people being hungry and living under conditions of abject poverty, no one can blame them for taking the gifts. Unfortunately, their actions on which their very lives depend, work to hinder sustainable democracy (Olken, 2010).
By accepting gifts and other goodies from politicians, these voters are encouraging political corruption which is a major hindrance to democracy. It follows, then, that as long as poverty remains unaddressed in Africa there will hardly be fairness and justice in the political game. This in turn means that there will never be sustainable democracy.
That is as far as poverty’s effects on democracy in Africa are concerned. Yet general underdevelopment also negatively affects democracy. For the purposes of this review, one aspect of underdevelopment is considered. This is ignorance or low levels of education. It ought to be noted that underdevelopment has many aspects or facets (Olarinmoye, 2008). This means that there are various indicators for underdevelopment. Different indicators no doubt affect democracy differently even though the overall effect is largely the same: hindering democracy.
Now onto the impacts of ignorance on democracy and how is related to or exacerbated by poverty. According to Freitag and Stadelmann-Steffen (2010), ignorance is another major challenge in not just Africa but other developing nations. Most people in the developing world are ignorant of many important issues and aspects of their lives, and these include their rights as citizens. Furthermore, most people are ignorant of their fundamental rights as well as what is expected of them from society (Freitag & Stadelmann-Steffen, 2010).
Generally, argues Abizadeh (2008), ignorance works together with poverty to make the people susceptible to the empty promises of politicians. Because of their poverty, they are in dire need of help from whatever sources or quarters. Politicians take this opportunity to bribe them with gifts in exchange for votes or political support. Sometimes the politicians simply offer the people vain promises which they never actually intend to fulfil or honour (Abizadeh, 2008).
Because of the people’s ignorance, they hardly ever, if at all, hold the politicians accountable for the promises they made to them. Even in subsequent elections, the politicians still manage to come back to the people and repeat the same pledges that they never fulfilled during the past elections (Abizadeh, 2008).
If the people were more conscious and aware of their rights, they would surely force these politicians to account for their actions and promise. They would even go ahead and question those politicians who attempt to bribe them with gifts and/or offer them promises which they do not intend to or actually fulfill.
Unfortunately, ignorance has tended to veil the people of Africa to an extent that some think politicians are doing them favours by offering them gifts and/or offering promises of development. In the actual sense, these gifts are used to further veil the people and stop them from holding the politicians accountable to the electorate (Abizadeh, 2008). Ignorance, it can therefore be argued, has served as a major hindrance to democracy.
True and sustainable democracy has to almost always be commensurate with ensuring that literacy levels are high, argue Chen and Redner (2005). It is only the literate than can effectively take part in the political processes of their country. Those who are illiterate, unfortunately, only act as spectators rather than players in the political game; and in democracy. Yet democracy cannot hold and thrive in places where there are more spectators than players. The people have to be active participants in the process of democracy for there to be democracy (Chen & Redner, 2005).
Chen and Redner (2005) further argue that this participation is not simply voting, after all everyone can vote, including the very illiterate. Instead, participation has to go farther to include having people consciously and deliberately being engaged in the decision-making processes that affect the way they are governed. The people have to make decisions regarding what they want, how they want it, and when they want it (Chen & Redner, 2005).
This, in fact, ought to be the most basic form of people participation in democracy. Before people can participate in elective politics and voters, they ought to have already taken part in the processes that led to the electioneering process. These include participation in setting the rules of engagement as this is one of the ways through which fairness and equality can be ensured (Chen & Redner, 2005).
Democracy in all its facets places the onus on the people. In fact, democracy would not be democracy if it were to be apart from the people. That, no doubt, explains why it was so-named. The term ‘democracy’, when directly translated from its Greek roots, means the rule by the people (Greek: demos) (Canivez, 2011).
According to Lind (2008), democracy allows every individual under its jurisdiction to be treated as an equal part of the country. The tenet of the worth of the individual refers to the importance of each person in a country. Under this concept, the governance of the country is meant to serve the needs of the individual as a way of improving the life of the whole society. This is opposed to communism approach that serves the society as a way of improving the individual’s life. The importance of this principle is illustrated in the election process where every individual is given the opportunity to contribute to the governance of the country.
The emphasis placed on the worth of the individual is the backbone of sustainable democracy. The worth of the individual is not placed on their achievement or their wealth; rather their worth is attached to their citizenship (Freitag & Stadelmann-Steffen, 2010). Once an individual is a citizen, either by birth or other constitutional means, they are granted a place in the governance of the country. This tenet of democracy is important for many aspects of social and economic development to be achieved.
Every democracy has struggled to ensure that equality of all persons is implemented. Equality is a basic requirement for any democracy. According to Abizadeh (2008), the tenet of equality of all persons means that all people are created equal. This means that every person under the democracy has the same level of freedom to pursue success and is under the same level of legal scrutiny as every other person regardless of their wealth or standing. This tenet is complex as it requires an intellectual approach. In the literal sense, the principle could show that every person should be equally adorned with wealth and power or have equality of mind and strength (Abizadeh, 2008).
A literal approach would bring forth conflict in many areas. Equality of all persons does not presume that every person has an equal share of wealth, neither does it suppose equality of ability; instead this canon means that each person is allowed equal opportunity for self-betterment, and that the law applies equally to every individual. This canon is also meant to ensure that there is no discrimination based on people’s personal attributes such as age, gender, race, or religion (Abizadeh, 2008).
This principle is absolute in importance to democracy. A sustainable democracy is meant to promote each individual’s quality of life. It is also meant to ensure that governance applies equally to all people. In a sustainable democracy, each individual is allowed to thrive towards their own goals in life (Levinson, 2010).
The importance of this canon is that it gives ways in which this development can be carried out and limits the extent to which one person’s freedom affects the other through the law. For example, every person is allowed to start and run a business in a sustainable democracy. This is the opportunity to flourish; however, this business is subject to the rule of law, whether it is a multibillion dollar entity or it is a small family business. For instance, in many democracies, every individual is subject to taxation (Levinson, 2010).
According to Freitag et al. (2010), people cannot be possibly expected to rule if and when they are not even aware of the nature of democracy itself. Knowledge is required to understand what democracy is and what it entails. The more enlightened the people are the higher the chances that democracy can take root and thrive in that society (Chen & Redner, 2005). The key word is knowledge or awareness. People should work closely with a free press to be on the lookout for flaws in the political process, for failures, and for signs of corrupt deeds and misdeeds.
Knowledge and awareness helps keep the process of democracy on track by ensuring that everyone is held to account for both actions and inactions. Ignorance severs the link between the people and their political leaders, note Freitag et al. (2010). This means the latter can afford to indulge in excesses that either endanger democracy or actually undermine it outright (Freitag et al., 2010). Therefore, the importance of tackling ignorance as one of the first steps towards establishing sustainable democracy cannot be overemphasized.
Africanized Democracy
More recently, the debate on the sustainability of democracy in Africa has shifted significantly to whether or not Western versions of democracy are suited for the African context. Proponents of this debate such as Dunning (2004) argue that Africa is not ready for any of the kind of democracy that is offered by the West. According to Dunning (2004), what Africa needs instead is a form of democracy that is basically cognizant of the unique political, social, and economic structures of the continent. He further argues that the continued insistence by the West on aspects such as freedom and open governance cannot have any realistic and meaningful results unless it goes farther to incorporate Africans and African aspiration.
Opponents of an African version of democracy have, on the other hand, contended that Africa needs to be helped to overcome the challenges that hinder democracy such as corruption and poor leadership (Ikelegbe, 2005). They believe that the Western version of democracy is the best method for Africa as it sets high standards for leaders and people who are otherwise not likely to seek any good for the people but for themselves. According to them, setting the right standards for African leaders through specific governance and democratic benchmarks to be met is the surest way of ensuring that sustainable democracy works for Africa (Ikelegbe, 2005).
The arguments presented are quite interesting but to a large extent differ in terms of the understanding of the African context. It is the author’s belief that to a very large extent, those who contend that a Western version of democracy is the ideal for Africa are grossly misinformed about what Africa is and so needs.
The approach and insistence of the West – especially through Western media and institutions – has been that Africa needs to be fed with everything – from leaders to leadership styles (Brown, 2009). In essence, the West offers many criticisms for Africa but stops short of offering any lasting solutions to these problems. Yet it keeps criticizing attempts by Africans to find its own solutions to its problems using the African way.
The West lacks any better or suitable alternatives for Africa in its quest to deal with the aforementioned challenges (Brown, 2009). In fact, the aspects that the West has been insisting on – notably freedom and good governance – have not in any way helped or attempted to help Africa deal with its problem of underdevelopment. Instead, the human condition of Africans continues to be dire (Brown, 2009). This, it can be argued, is the clearest indication ever that Western versions of democracy cannot work for Africa as it is out of sync with the aspirations and needs of the African people.
It cannot be denied that freedom and good governance as advocated by the West are good for development and for the improvement of the human condition (Abizadeh, 2008). However, that is not enough in the African context. What is required for Africa is what has been determined from evidence and practice to be working and not what foreigners think or believe will work.
It is true that freedom is the single most important aspect responsible for the deep entrenchment of democratic principles in most Western states (Brown, 2009). However – and this ought to be the most important factor to note – the West is not the same as Africa. Africa is very unique in many aspects.
Moreover, Africa is as different from any Western states – notably the US and the UK – as the East is from the West. It is no wonder that even a number of Western historians have joined the band of those opposing the imposition of an American or European version of democracy on Africa (Brown, 2009). Without diminishing the value of Western democracy, it can be argued that it is the one of – if not the only – deadliest Western exports to Africa. This means it is bound to ‘explode’ sooner rather than later.
On the other hand, proponents of an Africa version of democracy have also failed to go far enough to suggest practical alternatives. This has tended to leave Africa without any hope of a democracy. Yet it ought not to be taken that democracy cannot work for Africa per se. Democracy can surely work for Africa. The only limitation or precondition is that it has to be the right kind of democracy.
In essence, although democracy is not delivering the expected results in Africa – at least not as well as in the West – it remains to be one of the most viable options when it comes to governance in Africa. This cannot be denied. However, it cannot also be denied that there are African amendments to the Western form of democracy.
In the absence of any real recommendations for the improvement of democracy in Africa, a lot of room has been left for suggestions. One of the ways through which democracy can be Africanized or made to work more effectively for Africa and in the African context is to recognize the important role played by grassroots village leaders. These leaders – such as local chiefs and traditional kings – might not be political leaders per se but wield immense power and influence bestowed upon them by their people (Møller & Skaaning, 2013).
The Western version of democracy has no role for such grassroots leaders but only recognizes the prominent politicians that engage in the electoral process. Local leaders such as chiefs might not be as significant in terms of Western democracy. However, they are both more effective and more revered by the people than the ordinary politician (Møller & Skaaning, 2013). It follows, then, that true democracy in Africa has to be inclusive of the role of such ones.
To this end, it would be quite important or even indispensable to have the local and/or traditional leaders taking part in the process of governance. It means that what Africa needs is a sort of bicameral system where there are two levels of government at the very least. One level could be the national government while the second level the traditional leaders.
This is further complicated by the question about the real intentions of the West in pushing for democracy in Africa. For a long time now, critics of Western democracy have argued that it is not what Africa needs to develop or overcome its other socioeconomic problems (Freitag et al., 2010). Even more important is the argument that in pushing democracy to Africans, the West is just genuinely interested in developing Africa but actually ensuring that the political leaders that ascend to power serve Western interests (Freitag et al., 2010).
This argument has been supported by cases in Africa where democracy is advocated by the West only in countries which are largely opposed to the West yet countries that support the West or that have cordial relations with the West are hardly ever pressured to become democratic (Fleck & Kilby, 2010). According to Fleck and Kilby (2010), the West has a history of working closely and supporting dictators in Africa such as Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.
In Egypt, argue Fleck and Kilby (2010), the West was allied with Mubarak and clearly cared nothing about democracy in the country. In fact rarely, if at all, did the West condemn the autocratic governance system practiced by Mubarak (El-Hewie, 2013). It is clear now that Mubarak was a Western ally and could not be forced or coerced by the West to adopt democracy in Egypt.
Yet other countries and political leaders in Africa whose relations with the West have not been cordial have been consistently and even forcefully pressured to democratize. Sanctions – economic and political – have even been imposed on leaders and governments that have tended to be opposed to the West. Notable examples include Sudan, Uganda, and Libya (El-Hewie, 2013). It defeats logic for the West not to push for democracy in the most autocratic states and yet push for the same in states that are not as autocratic.
The author believes that there can only be one reason to explain this scenario. This has to do with vested interests. As long as a nation in Africa can serve the interests of the West, then it matters not whether or not that country is democratic. On the contrary, any African country – or its leader – that does not agree with Western ideologies and policies and is as a result of on good terms with the West has no choice but to suffer consequences if it does not embrace Western democracy.
The argument here is that the intentions of Western-led democracy in Africa are not what they are supposed to be. Democracy is no doubt supposed to be for the betterment of the people of Africa through increased political participation and creation of fairness and equality in Africa. Democracy is the means through which the majority rules while the minority is still given their rights (Ojo, 2006).
In Africa, though, the intention of the West in pushing for democracy is undoubtedly to best serve its vested interests: political and socio-economic. This is why democracy in Africa continues to be difficult to entrench and become sustainable. There might be intention to have democracy in Africa but the intention is from the wrong people. It is from the Westerners and not the Africans themselves. Even then, the Western intentions for democratizing Africa are all wrong, at least based on the practical examples in the aforementioned African states.
Capacity is lacking undoubtedly because Africa is in need of addressing more pressing problems than poor governance or even autocracy. The resources of African states mostly go towards improving the wellbeing of the people. This means that democracy cannot be well funded even if there was the intention to do so. Therefore, it follows that for democracy to thrive in Africa, the focus has first to be on creating capacity. Once the capacity is there, it would be a lot easier to democratize the continent.
Democracy and the Media in Africa
The role of a free press in enhancing democracy cannot be overlooked. In fact so important is the role of the media that democracy can hardly flourish in its absence or in circumstances where the media is censored by the state (Hydén, Leslie, & Ogundimu, 2003). The media is the most basic form of civil education for the electorate and the general public on matters pertaining to governance, administration, and politics. In fact the coverage of the media is boundless. This in effect means that in the absence of any other means through which the people can be informed, the media becomes the one source of information to which they rely (Hydén, et al., 2003).
The media is and ought to be the leading tool in any process of democratization. Without it, democracy cannot possibly go far. Any political system, whether in Africa or any other part of the world, is largely dependent on the press. This is mainly for the dissemination of information. It would be evidently be hard to imagine a political system where there was no media.
The outcome would be that information would never be circulated. This in turn would hamper communication. A host of people – if not all of them – would remain unaware of not just the important events happening around them and within their nation but also of the rights and privileges they are entitled to. If anything, the right to a free press is one of the fundamental rights of the citizens. It follows that the media has to be present and do its work as required or expected (Hydén et al., 2003).
While the most democratic societies of the world have long come to accept the role of the media in sustainable democracy, most African states still do not appreciate this fact. In fact so many African states still make attempts to gag the media through various means. This is no doubt done or attempted in order to ensure that the media does not disclose some of the happenings in those nations that the political leaders concerned would rather remained under cover (Ukiwo, 2003).
In the developed world, the media has come to be known as the watchdog of democracy. The same is desirable for Africa but there is a problem. Unlike in the developed world where democracy is already established, African democracy is either very young. Therefore, the role of the media as a watchdog of democracy in Africa cannot be clearly understood under such conditions. Instead, the media has to first play another role – that of ensuring that democracy comes about – before it takes on the role of watchdog (Hydén et al., 2003).
To underscore the argument that the media is a very effective and so desirable tool or agent in democracy, whether in initiating democracy or sustaining it, is important to compare the developed world and the developing world with regard to how they perceive the media. Rarely do the developed world and the developing world have anything in common especially regarding or touching on democracy. However, both act almost in similar fashion in their response to the media. Both the developing and developed world shows a tendency to dislike the media for its role of exposing certain issues.
Politicians are the leaders in this hatred for the media. While politicians would not do without the media, there are times when they sincerely wish there was no media (Hydén et al., 2003). This is especially when the media uncovers malpractices the politicians engage in. Therefore, hatred for the media by the political elite is a common feature in the developing and the developed world (Hydén et al., 2003).
The one major difference is, however, that the developed world hardly ever attempts to censor the media while the developing world does it liberally. This is where the level of democracy matters. It is mainly because the developed world has a strong democracy that it is not possible to censor the media successfully. The developing world, on the contrary, has no democracy or its democracy is still in its infant stages. This helps politicians to successfully censor the media (Hydén et al., 2003). It follows that the media is indispensable in democracy’s sustenance. It is a necessary instrument.
It has been argued before that one of the major hindrances to democracy in Africa is ignorance. In its most basic definition, ignorance is lack of knowledge (Hyden & Okigbo, 2002). It is the lack of understanding about rights and privileges owed to the people by the state. When there is such a lack of knowledge and understanding, the political class takes advantage of the people and undermines or violates their rights. They also deny the people privileges that rightly and justly belong to them. Since the people lack the knowledge, they do not claim their rights. After all, they are not aware that they have such rights in the first place (Hyden & Okigbo, 2002).
This is where the media comes in. It is not that the media is or ought to be the sole source of information about people’s rights and privileges. Civic education conducted by institutions or organizations mandated to do just that can also offer such information (Hyden & Okigbo, 2002).
However, given the lack of capacity problem that is common and prevalent in Africa, such institutions and/or organizations are rarely present. This leaves the media as the sole source of education and information on virtually every aspect of the people’s lives. These include information about rights and privileges, political processes, and scandals and other malpractices in society and in government. Therefore, the media is indispensable in Africa’s quest for democracy (Hyden & Okigbo, 2002).
It also follows that for democracy to function well in Africa, there is need for a vibrant media (Hyden & Okigbo, 2002). This has been one of the remaining challenges affecting sustainable democracy in Africa: the lack of a robust and independent media. The media in Africa is largely state controlled and therefore lacks the independence required to report on matters without fear or favour (Hyden & Okigbo, 2002).
The few independent media there are have been infiltrated by politicians such that they report favourably depending on which side of the political divide they support or their owners support. The end game is that the people get only skewed and misrepresented information as opposed to the true and correct information (Hyden & Okigbo, 2002). Making democracy sustainable in Africa has to be commensurate with making the media robust and independent.
CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology
In this chapter, the methods used to collect data for the study are presented. The chapter contains the research design, research philosophy, research strategy, and the research instruments. Also covered in the chapter are the limitations and delimitations of the study and issues of validity and reliability of the study.
Research Questions and Research Hypothesis
The success of any study is largely dependent on the research methodology adopted (Lancaster, 2005). This basically means that choice of research methods has a great impact on the overall findings of the study and so on the outcomes of entire study (Lancaster, 2005). The methodology adopted is in turn dependent on the nature of data that is desirable for the study. The nature of this data is a direct function of the research questions and/or hypotheses (Greener, 2008). This study sought to find answers to the following research questions:
- How has Nigeria’s history influenced its democracy?
- How is Nigeria’s present state of democracy relative to its democracy at independence?
- What is the relationship between the constitution and democracy in Nigeria?
- How are the formation, history, composition, role, and relevance of political parties in Nigeria?
- How does Nigeria rate with respect to the five cannons or tenets of democracy (the worth of the individual, equality of all persons, majority rule and minority rights, the necessity of compromise, and individual freedom)?
- How does the government of Nigeria protect individual rights?
- How much resources are invested in the achievement of sustainable democracy?
- How do government policies impact sustainable democracy?
- What challenges impede the achievement of sustainable democracy in Nigeria?
- How best can Nigeria achieve sustainable democracy?
Aside from the above research questions, the study also set out to test the following research hypotheses that are in line with the research questions:
H1. Nigeria’s history has negatively affected democratic rule. The differences amongst ethnic and religious communities contribute to the poor situation of Nigerian democracy.
H2. Nigeria has improved considerably in its state of democracy. Present Nigeria is comparably better than at independence.
H3. The constitution states that Nigeria is a democratic country, providing for a federal system of governance. However, failure to adhere to the constitution especially in matters pertaining to democracy remains a major barrier to the attainment of sustainable democracy in the country.
H4. Nigerian law provides for the formation of political parties. Currently, there are over 20 political parties in Nigeria although only 2 represent most of the country. Political parties have existed since 1960; and their prominence continues to rise as more freedoms for the people are achieved. They are pan-national and secular in nature with no distinct prominence of dominant ethnicities in the country. Since they contribute to the country’s leadership, their composition directly and indirectly impacts democracy. They have led to increased competition for leadership and so helped improve leadership quality.
H5. The worth of the individual is not prominently promoted in Nigeria as evidenced by the lack of ample security in the country. Equality of persons is only partially protected in Nigeria because citizens are allowed to participate in voting and other democratic activities. However, opportunity to achieve is inconspicuous. Nigeria’s majorities evidently comprise the government. Minority rights are poorly protected as evidenced by religious and ethnic persecution. Democracy is negatively affected by the lack of sufficient compromise especially on key issues like sharing resources. Individual freedom is present in Nigeria as citizens are allowed to carry out economic activities freely and move around the country without barriers. One challenge to individual freedom is bipartisan conflict such as that between Christians and Muslims.
H6. The government protects individual rights by providing a legal framework to handle cases of rights infringement. The inadequacies in the legal framework, however, have limited this protection to a few citizens.
H7. The government invests a considerable amount of resources and personnel for the achievement of sustainable development. These resources, however, are poorly managed and devoured by corruption agencies. This results in poor advancement in the democratic process.
H8. Some government policies enhance sustainable democracy. These policies, however, result in inadequate improvements of democracy since they are poorly implemented or violated by those responsible for them. Some policies also go against the tenets of democracy and therefore limit sustainable development from being achieved.
H9. The Nigerian government faces many impediments in its pursuit of a sustainable democracy, including insecurity, corruption, ethnicity, and poor resource management. These limit the ability of the government to implement the constitutional requirements for a sustainable development.
H10. Sustainable democracy can be achieved by overcoming the aforementioned challenges.
Research Design
Socio-political realities or phenomenon is not static but dynamic which of course poses limit and risk of depending on qualitative data alone (Ruane, 2005). Inadvertently, the nature of political parties as a subject informs the type of data and data sources useful in achieving the objectives of the research (answering the research questions). Based on the research questions, this study used a qualitative research design.
As a qualitative research, the study was concerned mainly with exploring issues, understanding phenomena, and answering questions (Ruane, 2005). In essence, its concern was to ascertain the reasons why the phenomena were in the observed/reported state. Qualitative research design was also used to enable the research explain issues, understand the phenomena, and answer questions pertaining to the phenomena (Lancaster, 2005). These questions were mainly with respect to what, why and how, and how they applied to the phenomena (Lancaster, 2005).
The choice of qualitative research design was informed by the need to collect numerical data (Greener, 2008). It is to be noted here that although party politics are different from issues of sustainable democracy, the two are closely related especially in the context of Nigeria. Therefore, both were taken to be the phenomena.
Research Approach
This study was deductive in approach. It sought to identify the factors that caused or contributed to the existence of the phenomena as was observed (Saunders et al., 2009). This basically means that the deductive research approach was important in testing and verifying the research hypotheses formulated and the theories behind the study (Ruane, 2005). The use of a deductive research approach was important as this was not only a hypothesis-testing but also theory-testing study (Greener, 2008).
Research Strategy
The research strategy employed for the current study was the use of case study. Through a case study, it was possible for the research to collect a lot of information (Greener, 2008). The study’s focus was on the Fourth Republic. The issues used to reach conclusions are the multiparty elections of the years 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011.
The Research Instruments
Since this was a qualitative research, qualitative data had to be collected (Lancaster, 2005). This in turn meant that the research instruments had to be chosen in such a way that they could collect qualitative data (Lancaster, 2005). The data for the study was collected using two main methods. The first method entailed the use of interviews while the second was desk research. The two methods were deemed sufficient to collect the quantity and quality of data required and necessary to provide answers to the research questions (Saunders et al., 2009).
Interviews.
Interviews were conducted on selected people with a view to seeking their opinions and views regarding the state of party politics and the challenge of a sustainable democracy in Nigeria. Their opinions were important as they are the people affected by both issues (party politics and the sustainable democracy challenge).
Two types of interviews were conducted: direct interviews and indirect interviews. Direct interviews were carried out by visiting the interviewees wherever they were and asking them the relevant questions. Indirect interviews were carried out either through e-mail or telephone calls to the concerned participants. Such interviews were important especially in cases where people earmarked or chosen to take part in interviews could not be accessed easily due to factors such as distance (Greener, 2008).
Interviews
Interviews were conducted because they were easy to carry out and yielded a lot of in-depth information (Lancaster, 2005). Unlike questionnaire surveys which only offer shallow information, interviews yielded a lot of information and interviewees were able to come into contact with the researcher (Lancaster, 2005).
Furthermore, interviews were less costly compared to methods such as questionnaire surveys where a lot of questionnaires have to be prepared and distributed (Greener, 2008). With interviews, all that was needed was for the interviewer to travel to where the interviewees were or to make calls and/or send e-mails to them. This method had the added advantage of ensuring that no data is lost (Greener, 2008). Loss of data is common with methods such as questionnaire surveys as some questionnaires get lost (Lancaster, 2005).
Desk research.
To complement primary research, secondary research was also undertaken. This entailed collecting data from purely secondary sources of data. Like all kinds of desk research, this was research that relied on data from already existing sources. These sources were often those which had already been analyzed by their original authors (Saunders et al., 2009). The data was collected from different documents, including journal articles, newspapers, government publications, periodicals, textbooks, party manifestos, and websites. Others sources included research reports, media reports, and newsletters. These were obtained from databases, libraries and the Internet.
The choice of secondary research for the study was informed by the need to ensure that primary data collected from interviews was supplemented (Ruane, 2005). Since responses from interviewees could get very subjective, the use of secondary research was a sure way of ensuring that the study’s findings were not based solely on people’s opinions which could be biased. Secondary research was also important because it helped the research compare between present findings and past ones (Saunders et al., 2009).
The main advantage of secondary research was that it was cheap and easy to carry out (Lancaster, 2005). All that the researcher required was to search the relevant websites and libraries for the right documents. Most of the information was readily available on the Internet; and this meant that issues of ethics or extra costs could not arise. In essence, the secondary sources of data used were easy to acquire and access (Vanderstoep& Johnston, 2009).
Sample and sampling process.
The sample size for this study consisted of a total of fifty (50) participants. The choice of 50 participants was made because the number or size was considered large enough to incorporate as many viewpoints as possible but also small enough to ensure that there were no generalizations (Ruane, 2005).
The sample for the study consisted of adults (18 years and above) drawn from different gender, social class, and occupation. However, priority was given to those people who were conversant with the subject of sustainable democracy in Nigeria and the challenge it has faced. To this end, those who took part were sampled using the purposive sampling methodology. This enhanced the chances of getting reliable data.
Although it would have been good to use random sampling because it is easier and cheaper (Saunders et al., 2009), this was not used as it would have inadvertently included participants who had little or even no clear understanding of the subject matter under investigation. This would in turn have compromised the study’s utility (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009). The people sampled and included to take part in interviews were those who were deemed to have proper and in-depth understanding of the process of democracy in Nigeria and especially how it is affected by party politics.
The sample included personnel drawn from the civil society, political science professors, and political parties. Also included were officials from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of Nigeria. More specifically, the participants were officials of INEC (10); civil society (10); political science professors (10); and political parties (20). All participants were located within Nigeria and mostly in and around the capital, Abuja.
The participants were contacted via email and asked to take part in the study. These participants were identified through other political leaders who believed that the participants had adequate knowledge on the Nigeria’s political history and the current happenings in the political arena. They were briefed about the nature, purpose, and goals of the study before being requested to take part. The participants were told that they had the right not to answer questions that they were uncomfortable about. In addition, the participants were told that they had the right not to participate in the study. Those who agreed to participate in the study were later asked to sign the informed consent form to show their commitment, and that they understood why they were taking part in the study. Since this sampling process was purposive, only those deemed to have knowledge of the subject by virtue of their positions were contacted.
This process went on (was repeated) until the required number of participants (50) was reached. The participants were then asked to choose an appropriate date, time, and venue of their liking when interviews could be conducted. This ensured that the interviews would be conducted at the convenience of the participants. The interviews were recorded and transcripts produced. Recording the interviews and the subsequent transcription helped the research to get every bit of the information that each participant communicated. The interviewer sought assistance from translators, especially when interviewing participants who could not communicate in English. The participants were given unique codes to hide their identities, and the transcripts had dates showing when the interviews were conducted.
Methods of Analysing Data
From the very outset, it is worth noting that the data was in this case analyzed with a view to determining the link, if any, between party politics and sustainable democracy in Nigeria. To analyze data for the study, one main method was used. The choice of this method was informed by the fact that this was qualitative research (Saunders et al., 2009).
Data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis entailed identifying specific themes contained in the data and then linking them to specific research questions (Guest, 2012). Given the fact that the study aimed to find answers to the specific research questions, linking specific themes to specific research questions was an important way of finding answers to the research questions concerned.
Thematic analysis basically followed two main steps. Each step consisted of different stages. In the first stage, the data that had been collected was organized into specific themes. By organizing the data in this way, it was possible to identify specific themes out of the otherwise quite unstructured data. This process of organizing data thematically entailed pinpointing, examining, and recording patterns or themes in the data (Guest, 2012).
The theme, for the purposes of the study, refers to the data sets that directly or indirectly described the particular phenomena under investigation. For this study, the phenomena were party politics and the challenges of a sustainable democracy in Nigeria. Therefore, all the datasets in one or the other addressed the issue of party politics and sustainable democracy in Nigeria.
The second step consisted of six different stages as is customary with thematic analysis. As is customary with thematic analysis, the current study focused on six very important phases in carrying out its thematic analysis (Guest, 2012). The first phase was familiarization with data. In this phase, all the collected data was perused and examined.
The second phase was the generation of initial codes (Guest, 2012). This was followed by a search of the various codes that were emerging from among the initial codes. The fourth phase entailed a thorough review of the themes. This was followed by definition and subsequent naming of the identified themes. The sixth phase entailed production of the final report (Guest, 2012).
Scope and Delimitations of the Study
Although the study was generally concerned with the activities of parties and general party politics in Nigeria, this was limited only to the period of time between the year 1999 and 2014. In essence, the study covered only the period of time starting from Fourth Republic to date. This is the period of time when Nigeria has been democratic. The study also examined the political parties that have actively taken part in the democratic process in Nigeria within this period of time; the main focus being on their history, and the challenges they have faced.
A greater emphasis is on the manner in which these political parties – their history, challenges, and successes, have impacted sustainable democracy in the country. The decision to restrict the study to the aforementioned period was to ensure that its specificity was enhanced. Nigeria has a long history as an independent nation spanning over fifty years (since independence was attained in 1950). Covering issues of democracy throughout this period would be impossible for such a study.
Assumptions of the Study
The researcher assumed that the tenets of democracy are the primary factors of evaluation of sustainable democracy. This was a vital assumption since it means that a sustainable democracy has to achieve a balance between these factors. It is possible, however, that a democracy can be achieved based on less than these tenets or without them altogether. This means that the recommendations of this research are only viable until another form of democracy is developed. Since democracy is always developing, this is possible.
The research assumed that the respondents provided accurate information. The information provided by respondents was cross checked for facts, however. This was because there were few records of necessary data and it was difficult to sort through what was available. This limited the accuracy of the research to the honesty of the respondents. The research also took to be truthful national data used in the research. For instance, data such as ethnic diversity, political parties and their composition, and monetary figures from the government were assumed to be true. This limited the accuracy of the research’s conclusions.
Limitations of the Study
This study was limited by several factors. First and foremost was the issue of accuracy of data provided? Since this study heavily relied on primary data from respondents, the accuracy of the data was difficult (though not impossible) to verify. Although care was taken to ensure that objectivity was adhered to, there was a significant amount of data which was based on the subjective views and opinions of the interviewees. With such subjective data and/or information, the risk of bias was high. To overcome this problem, the triangulation process was conducted where data from primary sources were supplemented with those from secondary sources (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009).
The second major limitation of the study was the lack of interviewees ready and willing to take part in the study. Any study is only as successful as its data is. If sources of data are few or minimal, the amount of data available could be insufficient to act as bases for making conclusions. For this study, those needed to take part in interviews were not very willing. This problem was overcome by carefully explaining to the participants the purpose of the study and the importance it had for the country. However, the author notes that this may have caused study bias.
Then there was the challenge of getting selected interviews to take part. This was because different participants were engaged in activities of their own and so found it hard to get time to be interviewed. This challenge was overcome by having individual interviewees making prior arrangements for when they could be interviewed. This was on the basis of their availability. That aside, those whose schedules could not really permit them to take part in direct interviews or who location at the time of the research was considered to be unreachable in person were contacted electronically through mail or telephone.
Finally, financial constraints constituted a considerable limitation to the research. While the researcher could be able to carry out a countrywide extensive research, financial constraints limited such an approach. A countrywide research could have required millions in funds and a considerable number of personnel. Financial limitations reduced the reach and application of the research. Therefore, the study’s findings cannot be directly applied across Nigeria since they were generalized based on the data collected on a national level.
Ethical Considerations
This study entailed encountering and/or coming into contact with people. As a result, several ethical issues had to be adhered to. The first one entailed seeking permission from would-be participants before they actually took part in the interviews. To this end, each person identified as a potential interviewee was contacted and requested to take part in the study.
After the purpose of the study and its important was made known to them, each one was if he/she was willing to take part. Those who agreed to be interviewed by giving a specific location, date, and time for the interview were included in the sample.
In addition, the other ethical issue adhered to was the use of the interviewees’ identities. For every participant in the study, no identities were disclosed. This was done in order to protect them from any potential implications (positive or otherwise) that would come about as a result of their participation in the study. By concealing the identities of the participants, it was especially possible to protect them from possible punitive measures or any other reprisals from different quarters. With identities concealed, chances of getting the correct data from the respondents were also greatly enhanced.
Credibility and Utility of the Study
In order to enhance the validity and reliability of the study’s findings, several measures had to be taken (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009). The first one was the use of multiple methods of collecting data. For this study, both interviews and content study were used. The two worked to complement each other, thereby enhancing the reliability of the study’s findings. This was basically a case of use of triangulation (Saunders et al., 2009). By combining two different methods of collecting data, all the required data was collected. Furthermore, the data collected was proven to be precise, correct, and reliable.
The second way through which the study’s validity and reliability was enhanced was through use of secondary sources of data which had been peer-reviewed. As much as possible, the journal articles, text books, and other secondary sources used were those which had been vetted by professionals and experts in the concerned fields and approved for use. In essence, most of the secondary sources of data used were scholarly and per reviewed. This greatly enhanced the study’s validity and reliability. Likewise, a faculty member was assigned to the research. The university’s Academic Research Board oversaw the entire process of the research thereby increasing reliability.
CHAPTER FOUR: Results and Analysis
This chapter presents the findings of the study as well as a critical analysis and/or discussion of the findings. The chapter not only lays out the findings but also links them to the literature as was reviewed. It is in this chapter that specific answers to the research questions are presented. For this reason, the chapter’s findings are organized on the basis of theme, each theme being informed by one or more research questions. Where possible, several research questions are combined together into one theme and discussed together.
Understanding Democracy
From the very outset, it is important to reiterate that the democracy is a very important aspect in the social and economic empowerment of Nigeria. This system of governance is not perfect, but is the best of the governing systems available across the world. Like Winston Churchill once said, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others (Ujo, 2000).
These words best capture what democracy for Nigeria is: although it is clearly with many shortcomings and so is not ideal, it is nonetheless best when compared to all other forms of governance. In the context of Nigeria, the value of democracy is best appreciated because of the country’s history that has been characterized by long periods of coups and military rule. Therefore, democracy is a welcome break from the past (Ujo, 2000).
However, it was found in the course of the study that there is a need to enhance sustainable democracy in the country. This is because although since the year 1999 Nigeria could be said to have been democratic, this kind of democracy cannot be classified as sustainable. In fact it is not in any way sustainable. This is especially so given that Nigeria is a developing country in Africa where the challenges to democracy are more compared to the developed nations of the West where democracy originated.
Nigeria’s success in all other spheres of life is largely, if not mainly, dependent on its ability to build a sustainable democracy that respects the principle rules of democracy and favors the public over a few elite (Frank & Ukpere, 2012). The major problem with regard to attainment of sustainable democracy in the country has been the role of political parties (Frank & Ukpere, 2012).
It was noted at the very beginning of this dissertation that the tenets of democracy have to be applied and gauged to determine a country’s level of democratic development or attainment. Therefore, any examination of Nigeria’s democracy has to be commensurate with, or inclusive of, a critical examination of these tenets.
A sustainable democracy is one that achieves a balance and maximizes these five canons of democracy (Ujo, 2000). These are: the worth of the individual, equality of all persons, majority rule and minority rights, the necessity of compromise, and individual freedom (Ujo, 2000). These five principles provide the best approach to evaluating a democratic system of the ruling and its effectiveness.
Effects of Nigeria’s History on its Democracy
From the interview surveys and secondary research, the most recurrent theme with respect to the relationship between Nigeria’s history and its democracy was military rule. Since independence, Nigeria has been ruled by at least 8 different military regimes.
This in turn means that there have been at least 8 military coups in the country since independence in 1960 (Frank & Ukpere, 2012). In fact the only time when the country was under a civilian regime (other than the one following independence) from independence to 1999 was between 1 October 1979 to 31 December 1983 (under Shehu Usman AliyuShagari, an elected civilian) and between 27 August 1993 and 17 November 1993 (ruled by Ernest OladeindeShonekan, an unelected civilian) (Frank & Ukpere, 2012). All the other times there was a military regime.
Owing to the country’s long periods under military rule, the people have tended to become used to force, tyranny, oppression, and general disregard of the law. The military rulers and their regimes excelled in these practices. Since they were often a law unto themselves and were not bound by anything – not even the law of Nigeria – they did whatever they pleased as long as they deemed it right. Under military rule, the people had no voice, let alone any role in governance.
Generally, the history of the country under military rule has come to have both a direct and indirect bearing on the level and extent of democracy in the country today. The behavioral trends being witnessed today are a reflection of the long years under military rule (Frank & Ukpere, 2012). In Nigeria, military leadership did affect not just the political class of the time but also the judiciary, the executive, the civil society, and the legislature. Unfortunately, these effects have remained to date.
It was found that how each of these critical institutions of governance operates today is reminiscent of the many past years that Nigeria has been under military rule. In essence, these institutions and agencies are what they are today because they have been or were modeled by military rule.
The three arms of government together with civil society are arguably the most instrumental agents in the process of change; and especially when this change entails or pertains to democracy (Cheibub, Gandhi, & Vreeland, 2010). The civil society is especially instrumental in bringing about change in any nation. To achieve this, however, it needs to be completely free from any form of influence especially from the executive (Ukiwo, 2005).
The judiciary is the other important institutions in fostering democratic reforms. For true democracy to be realized and sustained, there has to be a robust, fair, and free judiciary (Ukiwo, 2005). Meddling in judicial affairs by the political elite is, unfortunately, a sure way of undermining democracy.
Unfortunately, it was found that military rule in Nigeria made the conditions for political meddling in these institutions quite favorable. The civil society was so much persecuted that it almost lost its relevance in society. The judiciary was infiltrated by political interests, while the legislature became the place for making laws which were meant to keep regimes in power rather than to help foster democracy (Cheibub, Gandhi & Vreeland, 2010). In fact the legislature was largely used to rubberstamp decisions by the executive. This trend has managed to seep through from the past to the present.
Although the last military regime in the country was in 1999, the effects it and others had on democracy in Nigeria still remain (Siollun, 2009). Bottom-line is that the norms and values that were prevalent in the days of military rule have continued to be manifested in the current democracy. It is no wonder that it is a wavering and struggling democracy (Ukiwo, 2005).
It was found in the course of the study that in Nigeria today, use of force rather than dialogue is still a preferred method of dealing with any dissenting views. Force is not an ingredient that ought to be found in a democracy. Yet Nigerians still come face to face with brutal force when they break the law or generally come into contact with law enforcers. The democratic regimes present in the country have long gotten used to using force to achieve results quicker and with little expense.
Respondents critical of government noted that the government finds the use of force against dissenting voices to be a sure way of suppressing these voices while at the same time warning others of the dire consequences of doing so. Even the freedoms that are considered to be very basic in a democracy are still being undermined in Nigeria today. These include freedom of expression and assembly, freedom of movement, and freedom to protest. These are still relative freedoms, enjoyed only in limited extents.
To a large extent, it was found, rights and freedoms are still violated. Journalists are still being arrested arbitrarily and even detained without trial for long periods of time (Hydén et al., 2003). Media houses can still be closed at the wishes of the state or government. Militants who have the right to protest have been arrested and determined. All this can be linked to Nigeria’s military past only that it is happening at a time when Nigeria is supposedly democratic.
There is more in today’s governance system of Nigeria that is a reflection of the country’s military past. Notable among them are impunity and corruption. Respondents cited impunity as one of the vices that have greatly impeded Nigeria’s growth towards democracy. Impunity is basically disrespect of or disregard for the law (Frank & Ukpere, 2012). No democracy can thrive in a context of disobedience of the law. It simply means that institutions such as the judiciary which enforces the law and the legislature which makes these laws are rendered obsolete and of no value.
The law is what ultimately guides a nation. Failure to obey it is a recipe for anarchy (Olarinmoye, 2008). Yet this is a common enough practice in Nigeria. According to one of the interviewees, the political elite, as well as those who have political connections, hardly ever care about the law. They break it often enough as long as it suites their needs and serves their interests.
Many of the respondents noted that corruption is almost synonymous with Nigeria now. Corrupt dealings both in the public and private sector are common. This has greatly compromised delivery of services to the nation. Contracts are awarded to cronies or those with political connections. This not only compromises the quality of services delivered but also risks undermining the very process of public procurement. In fact procurement is of no value in Nigeria as it is hardly done in a transparent manner (Frank & Ukpere, 2012; Olarinmoye, 2008).
Both corruption and impunity were traceable to the past when military regimes ruled Nigeria. This means that Nigeria’s past is impacting negatively on its current endeavor to democratize. One respondent said that, “Although Nigeria is a democracy, it is still being run as a garrison. Although democracy is about inclusive political processes, Nigeria’s politics are conducted more like warfare.”
A few of the respondents noted that civilians have also tended to like this approach better for they readily play along. Although they know their rights, they hardly seek them. Although they know that they need not pay bribes to get services, they still pay because they have come to accept it as a culture. Surprisingly, those who are leading this have not been in the military at any one time. It follows that the past military experiences of the country are still haunting it and its leaders fifteen years since the end of the last military rule in the country.
Another historical factor that continues to impact Nigeria’s democracy according to most of the respondents is ethnicity and ethnic rivalry. Since the colonial days, Nigerians were segmented by the British into ethnic groups. Each of these groups has grown to become powerful depending on the number of followers it has.
Many of the respondents reported that these ethnicities have, in the democratic era, come up with their own political parties. Therefore, for any political party to win an election in Nigeria it has to be ethnically rooted and supported. Since this is almost impossible given the over 165 different ethnicities in the country, many ethnic groups have to come together to form coalitions in order to win elections especially at the national and state level.
In colonial times, such ethnic divisions were used by the British to keep the people apart as there was no way they would rise up against the colonialists while they were divided ethnically. Today, the same problem exists: no single ethic community can win elections in its own. Either they have to merge or the dominant parties in each ethnic group have to form coalitions (Azeez, 2004).
While this might not be a bad idea after all, the negative aspect of it is that ethnicity still plays a very key role in Nigerian politics and so in its democracy. Parties and political candidates need not to be popular with the people or have the best policies and/or ideologies (Jega, 2007). All they need is to belong to the ethnic group with the most people.
Today, big tribes in Nigeria such as the Igbo, Yoruba, and the Hausa-Fulani dominate Nigeria politics. People from these communities are always sure of winning elections (Jega, 2007). This has negatively affected democracy as leaders cannot be held to account for their actions and inactions.
Nigeria’s Current State of Democracy Relative to that of the First Republic
The present level of democracy compared to the level of democracy at independence is quite advanced (Jega, 2007). However, it is important to examine specific indicators with respect to the First and Forth Republics. The list of all Nigerian presidents, from the first republic to the fourth republic can be found in appendix 1.
The First Republic may have been democratic but the form of democracy at that time was very different from the one of the Fourth Republic. One difference was the type of democracy. At that time, Nigeria still used its old constitution which provide for a Westminster form of government with a parliamentary system that was in most ways similar to the British system of governance (Cheibub et al., 2010).
There was a federal constitution which guaranteed autonomy to the three main regions of the nation (East, West, and North). Majority rule was emphasized but not to the same level as in the Fourth Republic. Although this system was democratic, it was still less stable as it put so many powers in parliament and to some extent the Prime Minister and the President (Okoosi-Simbine, 2011). It is no wonder that this consolidation of power in a few institutions led to frustration among those outside government with the result that the First Republic was ousted through a coup (Olarinmoye, 2008).
At that time, there might have been freedoms but they were largely reserved for a few (Olarinmoye, 2008). This was largely because of the delay between independence and actually declaration of a republic. Although Nigeria gained independence in 1960, it was not until 1963 that its full independence from Britain was declared (Okoosi-Simbine, 2011). In the meantime, there was only partial independence, meaning that Nigeria was partly free and partly under colonial rule. This hampered any effects to democratize the country and grant its people their rights and privileges under the constitution.
Instead, the colonialists still put restrictions in place (Ikelegbe, 2005). Nonetheless, Nigerians enjoyed significant freedoms and rights after 1963 as these were provided for in the constitution. However, it was the fact that even the First Republic was a multiparty democracy that made Nigeria stand out among other African nations.
For most of these other nations, independence resulted into a one-party system of governance. However, Nigeria went straight from colonialism to a multiparty democracy. This could explain why the country went through a near-collapse due to ethnically motivated politics which were driven by the presence of regional and/or even ethnic political parties. Although part of this still remains today, the level of ethnic divisions then was nowhere near what it is now (Cheibub et al., 2010).
Most of the interviewees reported that that during the First Republic, democracy was also greatly undermined by regional politics. Only three parties were dominant in the country; and these represented the North, West, and East of Nigeria. The country was divided into these three parts. While the same ethic politics are still present today, the level of ethnic rivalry and competition has reduced significantly. Whether driven by ethnic or political differences (or both), the First Republic was known for its boldness and lack of fear in committing human rights violations of different kinds (Onwumechili, 1998). Politicians and civilians alike were detained, some without charges, for even minor offenses. Nigeria was basically a police or military state even though this was not official.
In the study, the respondents noted that the process of electioneering was also far from democratic. In fact the only aspect of democracy was the ability to hold the election in 1965. However, the outcome of the election, how it was conducted, and the subsequent events were to prove that democracy was only an illusion in the country.
The elections were marred with allegation of vote rigging, bribery, and other forms of electoral malpractices (Azeez, 2004). However, it was the failure by the opposing political parties to and their leaders to agree to a winner that showed the lack of democracy. The losers did not concede defeat while there was no clear evidence that the winners actually won. The contentions that followed the disputed elections plunged the country into a civil war in 1967 (Ituma & Simpson, 2007).
How Nigeria Fairs with Respect to the Five Tenets of Democracy
As was noted before, Nigeria’s democracy is not sustainable but fledgling. To understand the cause of this, the five tenets of democracy had to be examined with respect to Nigeria. These are discussed here below:
Worth of the individual.
According to Lind (2008), democracy allows every individual under its jurisdiction to be treated as an equal part of the country. The tenet of the worth of the individual refers to the importance of each person in a country. Under this concept the governance of the country is meant to serve the needs of the individual as a way of improving the life of the whole society. This is opposed to communism approach that serves the society as a way of improving the individual’s life. The importance of this principle is illustrated in the election process where every individual is given the opportunity to contribute to the governance of the country.
The emphasis placed on the worth of the individual is the backbone of sustainable democracy. The worth of the individual is not placed on their achievement or their wealth; rather their worth is attached to their citizenship (Freitag et al., 2010). Once an individual is a citizen, either by birth or other constitutional means, they are granted a place in the governance of the country.
This tenet of democracy is important for many aspects of social and economic development to be achieved. For instance, in the case of Nigeria, every person is afforded a chance at leadership and governance just by being a citizen. This means that the country can be ruled by anyone who is a citizen, regardless of their class and stature or gender.
The realities of governance, however, are controlled by the other tenets of democracy. This is necessitated by the realities of economic and social dominance of a democratic society. While anyone is allowed to be a leader, natural, social and economic factors determine who has the probability of becoming a leader in Nigerian society.
In Nigeria, the concept of worth of the individual is provided for in the constitution. This is an important basis for evaluating democratic rule in the country. The problem area, however, is associated with the implementation of the concept. The ideal approach of sustainable democracy is that every citizen is afforded the opportunity to either govern or determine who governs. This translates to participation of every individual.
The role of the government is to facilitate this concept. This means that the government is responsible for facilitating citizen participation, rather than obstructing it. The choice to participate or not, however, is left to the individual. Nigeria’s situation is less than ideal when it comes to the worth of the individual. While there have been tremendous improvements in how citizens participate in governance, there is a need for improvements.
There are many determining factors to this situation in Nigeria. The focus of this research, however, pertains to the role played by political parties in facilitating sustainable democracy. Political parties in Nigeria have a part to play in the enhancement of the concept of worth of the individual. Since political parties contribute directly to the leadership pool of the country, they indirectly facilitate or obstruct the worth of the individual.
In Nigeria, service to the individual hasn’t reached the desired level. There are many areas where individuals are denied rights based on certain factors such as geography or due to mismanagement of governance by an elite group. The role of political parties is to ensure that the people they represent are not subjugated or denied their place in the democratic system.
The above discussion based on the outcomes of the interviews, indicates that the premise of democracy is highly based on the worth of the individual. This tenet determines the achievement of a sustainable democracy. While some level of the principle is evident in the Nigerian situation, there is a large insufficiency in the ideal implementation of the worth of the individual. Political parties have not effectively supported the implementation of this tenet in the Nigerian governance system. The worth of the individual in a democracy should be paramount and protected by the governance system.
Equality of all persons.
Every democracy has struggled to ensure that equality of all persons is implemented. Equality is a basic requirement for any democracy. According to Abizadeh (2008), the tenet of equality of all persons means that all people are created equal. This means that every person under the democracy has the same level of freedom to pursue success and is under the same level of legal scrutiny as every other person regardless of their wealth or standing. This tenet is complex as it requires an intellectual approach.
In the literal sense, the principle could show that every person should be equally adorned with wealth and power or have equality of mind and strength. A literal approach would bring forth conflict in many areas.
Equality of all persons does not presume that every person has an equal share of wealth, neither does it suppose equality of ability; instead this canon means that each person is allowed equal opportunity for self-betterment, and that the law applies equally to every individual. This canon is also meant to ensure that there is no discrimination based on people’s personal attributes such as age, gender, race, or religion.
This principle is absolute in importance to democracy. A sustainable democracy is meant to promote each individual’s quality of life. It is also meant to ensure that governance applies equally to all people. In a sustainable democracy, each individual is allowed to thrive towards their own goals in life.
The importance of this canon is that it gives ways in which this development can be carried out and limits the extent to which one person’s freedom affects the other through the law. For example, every person is allowed to start and run a business in a sustainable democracy. This is the opportunity to flourish; however, this business is subject to the rule of law, whether it is a multibillion dollar entity or it is a small family business. For instance, in many democracies, every individual is subject to taxation.
The case of Nigeria, envisages a situation far from the desired position. While the concept of equal opportunity is in the constitution, there are plenty of barriers to equality. Nigerian society is comprised of different classes and ethnic groups, which determine opportunity (Ukiwo 2005). This means that there are differences in access to resources and opportunities depending on your class and ethnic background.
Most of the respondents noted also, that nepotism is a consistent problem in Nigerian politics and governance. These factors reduce the implication of equality of all persons. These factors are not unique to Nigeria and have challenged numerous developing democracies considerably. In order to achieve a sustainable democracy, equality of all persons has to be enforced. Based on this assessment, there are considerable legal and social changes required for the Nigerian democracy to become successful.
The role of political party’s inequality cannot be ignored. Developed countries have stable political party systems that adhere to the law and stick to their principles. These political parties often have guidelines and are governed appropriately according to the law. The role of political parties in ensuring equality of all persons is its membership. Political parties draw membership from the public. This means that they have the ability to educate the public on the meaning and implication of equality of all persons.
Many political parties fail to accomplish this purpose and simply take advantage of their members’ ignorance. Equality of all persons does not mean that every person has equal intellect; however, equal opportunity means that every person is given a fair education of what it means to be equal under democracy.
This is significantly different from the situation in Nigeria and other developing democracies. The characteristics of political parties are often reflections of the governance structure. As mentioned before, political parties contribute to the leadership pool in the country. Issues of equality of all persons are present in Nigerian political parties. Even in political parties, all persons are not equal.
The author believes that the principle of equality should mean that political parties should offer all their members equal opportunity to pursue leadership and prosperity within the confines of the party. This is not accomplished due to the issues mentioned above such as nepotism, ethnicity and class. These challenges prevent political parties from treating all their members equally. Another approach to the problem is the lack of knowledge among party members of the opportunity. They cannot take up opportunities for information is withheld from them by the party leadership.
Majority rule and minority rights.
As was noted earlier, the principle of majority rule and minority rights is perhaps the most challenging to democracies (Chen & Redner 2005). This principle means that the majority of people in the country have their way as long as it does not diminish the rights of the minority. Democracy acknowledges that it is impossible to satisfy every person in the country. The right approach is to satisfy the majority while ensuring that the minority are reasonably treated.
From the interviews, it was reported that Nigerian leadership is determined by a majority rule system. Elections are held regularly, and leaders are determined based on the choice of the majority. While this is one of the examples of the application of the principle, it is not evident in governance. While leaders are chosen based on the opinion of the majority, they do not govern on this premise. However, ethnicity, nepotism, and corruption get in the way of majority rule and minority rights (Okoosi-Simbine, 2011).
Therefore, the author argues that the government should serve the majority and protect the rights of the minority. One of the areas where protection of the minority takes precedence over majority rule is governance based on wealth and class. There are high wealth disparities in Nigeria. The wealthy are provided with significant comfort and protection, while the poor are barely served and subjected to considerable hardships.
Nigerian political parties are directly or indirectly responsible for the poor application of this principle. There are a number of policies that protect minority interests at the expense of the majority. These policies and laws are enacted and enforced by different arms of government.
First, political parties contribute to the government and secondly, they fail to oppose effectively the presence of these laws. This has led to a widespread dissatisfaction with governance and wealth disparities as poor people become poorer and devastated by oppressive conditions, and wealthy people become richer.
It is important to note that Nigerian democracy continues to improve; however, the rate of improvement is slow and does not provide the satisfaction rate desired by the majority. Political parties have failed to enact laws that satisfy the majority. A crucial component of this failure has been corrupted across government ranks.
Necessity of compromise.
One of the most important drivers of democracy is compromise (Levinson, 2010). The premise of this tenet is that there are many opinions and beliefs within a democracy. Due to the provision of equality, every individual under a democracy has the right to state their position. The provision of majority rule and minority rights requires that the majority be satisfied relevant to minority rights.
The necessity of compromise brings together these provisions. The necessity of compromise works on achieving the common ground or the most acceptable position among the citizens. Without compromise it is impossible to make any advances in a democracy (Leib, 2007).
In this study, the author found out that compromise has not been observed in Nigerian democracy. This can be attributed to different social and political challenges. For instance, the presidency in Nigeria is seen to move in-between two major communities. Whenever the presidency moves to one community, the other suffers considerably since policies favor the ruling community (Ikelegbe, 2005). Ethnicity undermines compromise.
Another vital challenge to compromise is corruption. Corruption in Nigeria is evident at different levels of government. The premise of compromise is that people’s opinions are blended to an agreeable solution.
Corruption undercuts this process by enabling people with connections, wealth, and political strength to achieve their own goals without compromising for others. This is a negative approach to democracy. The desired implication of compromise is that an agreeable solution is used for every conflict. With the approach common in Nigeria, there are aggrieved parties, leading to considerable future challenges.
In Nigeria, it was found that political parties are formed out of ethnic backgrounds and hence have considerable differences. Since leadership is comprised of political party members, there are many conflicts. Despite the ethnic inclination of political parties, conflicts in leadership arise from individual interests. Corruption has a considerable effect on compromise.
Political parties are heavily involved in corrupt agreements that benefit individuals rather than party interests. Those parties that have proper agendas are faced with considerable challenges as they attempt to push their agendas. The problem in Nigeria, is not the lack of compromise, rather it is the lack of the right motives for compromise. Political parties are involved in such compromises that serve self-interests and deprive the public of the fruits of democracy. The next section examines how democracy and constitutionality in Nigeria are related.
Democracy and Cconstitutionality in Nigeria.
Nigeria’s constitution is the supreme law of the country; and the current constitution was enacted on 29 May 1999 (Ukiwo, 2003). Democracy is a principle deeply rooted in the constitution of Nigeria. Therefore, it is a legal requirement which has to be adhered to. Actually, it was the enactment of the current constitution that effectively restored democracy in Nigeria. Previous attempts at democracy had been undermined by long periods of military rule (Azeez, 2009).
The constitution provides for a federal government where there are two main levels of governance: the federal level and the state level. As such, autonomy is granted leach state to self-administer. However, the federal government is the highest level of administration. The constitution provides that executive power is to be exercised by the president (Ukiwo, 2005).
The Nigerian system of governance is modeled after that of the United States of America (US). There is a bicameral legislature where the Westminster system is applied in the governance of the upper and lower houses of the legislative arm of government. Unlike the US system, however, the Nigerian president has more powers, being not just the head of state but also the head of government and head of a multi-party system (Ikelegbe, 2005).
The two chambers of the legislature (the Senate and the House of Representatives) align with the government and hold the country’s legislative powers. The Senate and the House of Representatives are the law-making entities in the country and are collectively referred to as the National Assembly. They play an oversight role over the executive arm of government, ensuring that they put the executive under check (Azeez, 2009).
The constitution provides for a Supreme Court of Nigeria which is essentially the highest judicial organ in the country. The principle of separation of powers between the three arms of government (the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary) is applied based on Baron de Montesquieu’s theory. Nigeria’s legal system is modeled after that of the UK (Ukiwo, 2003). It means that the basis of the country’s law is the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
In the course of the research, it emerged that although Nigeria’s constitution as enacted did have far-reaching provisions for democracy, two amendments have been made to make it more aligned with the modern-day requirements of democracy. In 2011, the first ever amendments to the constitution were undertaken by President Goodluck Jonathan. The amendments targeted the area of human rights and citizens entitlements and freedoms.
Generally, the rights and freedoms of the citizens were greatly expanded. The first amendment states in part that that every person has a right to life and that no person shall be deprived intentionally of his/her life except in the execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria.
The second amendment details the circumstances when a person could be legally denied of the aforementioned rights. Generally, though, the constitution of Nigeria could be said as being far-reaching in its provisions regarding democracy (Azeez, 2009). The only challenge, as would be expected, is the lack of proper enforcement. The democratic principles enshrined in the constitution have from time to time been neglected; and this has greatly undermined democracy in the country.
Nigerian Political Parties: Formation, History, Composition, Role, and Relevance
It was found that Nigerian law provides for the formation of political parties. This law was introduced in the period immediately leading up to Nigeria’s independence in 1960. In fact the country is known as being one of those with a large proportion of pro-independent parties in Africa. At that time, however, political parties were large movements formed to champion the push for independence. At independence, Nigeria had several active political parties; and it was one of the countries in Africa which went straight from colonialism to a multiparty system of governance.
Currently, there are over 20 political parties in Nigeria although only about 2 represent most of the country. These two are the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). Political parties have existed since 1960; and their prominence continues to rise as more freedoms for the people are achieved. They are pan-national and secular in nature with no distinct prominence of dominant ethnicities in the country.
Since political parties contribute to the country’s leadership, their composition directly and indirectly impacts democracy. They have led to increased competition for leadership and so helped improve leadership quality (Appendix 2).
In the course of the study, it was established that political parties in Nigeria were actually quite instrumental in the process of modernizing the country (Azeez, 2009). Since modernization of the political system was established in the literature as one of the functions of political parties anywhere in the world, then Nigerian political parties have at least proven to be doing this function. The only challenge or shortcoming with respect to this is that it is not necessarily the case today as it was at independence.
At independence, political parties in Nigeria were proactive in acting as the point of contact between the people and their governments both at the state and federal level. This relationship was fostered by the support that the people gave to the political parties in exchange for information about the government. This essentially means that at that time, Nigerian political parties were used as instruments to get people (the masses) involved in the political system in general and by doing so helped modernize Nigeria.
To achieve this, political parties served the function of being organizers of public opinion and testers of attitudes. They also functioned as transmitters of this of both attitudes and public opinion to the government leaders and officials concerned with a view to ensuring that there laws agreement and harmony between both the public and the government and the rulers and the ruled.
Naturally, and under normal circumstances, the form of political parties ought to be determined by society’s entire socio-political framework. The parties need a political regime or constitutional framework that is congenial ton their functions. Furthermore, they have to rely heavily on the groupings in society in order to get their members. Finally, political parties have to act as subgroups in systems which have ability to generate their own power.
The situation in Nigeria regarding all these aspects has continued differing over time. From independence to date, however, one factor remains the same with regard to the political parties. This is that they are formed largely on the basis of ethnicity and so draw their membership from these ethnic groupings. Therefore, every large ethnic community in Nigeria has its dominant political party.
It is not that a single political party is available for each dominant ethnic group. Instead, some ethnic groups could have multiple political parties formed solely to champion their rights and aspirations. Even then, though, each large ethnic group will have a large political party that is highly regarded and used as a kind of official representative of the people of that ethnic group. In essence, the manner in which political parties are formed and structured in Nigeria has raised serious fundamental questions as regards to their role in fostering democratic principles in the country.
One issue that appears to be true about Nigerian democracy according to the responses from most of the research participants is that people have tended to almost accept electioneering as democracy even when it has been clear that the elections have been marred by various malpractices. This is something which can be blamed directly on the failure by Nigerian political parties to actually communicate to the people what is required for a true sustainable democracy to be realized. It was found that fraud and marred elections remain to be the only true version of democracy in Nigeria today as it was at independence. For most Nigerians who had long learnt to live under military rule, such elections are considered to be much better than none.
While it is true that Nigerians have been blinded for a long time by military rule, this ought not to be justification for the continued undermining of democracy especially by political parties. Today, the many political parties present in Nigeria seem to exist for the sole purpose of getting power. Unfortunately, they pursue this goal using the people but then hardly ever involve the people in the running of government when and if they indeed get the power they were seeking.
According to some of the respondents, Nigerian political parties have been tasked with the roles of fielding candidates for elective positions, campaigning for these candidates, canvassing for votes from the masses and getting their candidates elected to form governments. However, this alone cannot bring about sustainable democracy. Political parties have, in addition to the above roles, to ensure that they create competitive ideologies for the benefit of the people they serve. These ideologies, in essence, have to be formulated on the basis of the people’s aspirations.
Unfortunately, this is far from the truth in Nigeria. It was found instead that political parties hardly ever champion the aspirations of the people except perhaps when and where doing so directly gives the parties some level of popularity and edge over their rivals. Otherwise political parties in Nigeria need not to have such ideologies or worse, follow them. This is because the parties are formed along ethnic lines. With ethnicity being the main unifying factor of political parties, all a party needs is to have a strong base of supporters from a given ethnicity and it is sure to help itself and its candidates to win elections.
In essence, winning elections in Nigerian is determined not by the popularity of the political party in terms of ideology but in the popularity in terms of ethnic following. Therefore, it is not surprising at all that since the restoration of multiparty democracy in Nigeria in 1999 only one party has ruled the nation. This party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), has swept every presidential election in the country since the coming into force of the Fourth Republic. A center-right conservative political party, the PDP has been the dominant political party in the fourth Republic.
It was found that with time, though, even the political leaders of these parties have shown that they care less, if at all, about their ethnicities. Instead, they are more concerned about using the people to win elections than about the people’s welfare. Even when politicians use people as vehicles to get to power and then abandon them soon after, this culture has not helped the country end ethnic politics which are a major threat to democracy. It is as though Nigerians have learnt to accept this state of affairs as the norm, making themselves instruments to be readily used by politicians and political parties and then ‘dumped’ soon after elections are ended.
Yet this ethnic identity has been there since independence. This means that just like in most other aspects of Nigeria’s fledgling democracy, the challenge of ethnicity seems to have remained as major determinant of the formation, structure, composition, and even roles of Nigerian political parties. At independence during the First Republic, all the dominant political parties were formed by or on the basis of ethnic groups. The main goal was to usurp power and use it to advance not the interests of the nation per se but hose of the ethnicity.
Azeez (2009) best captures the origin and formation of political parties at dependence: “The Action Group (AG) developed from the political wing of the cultural association of the Yoruba educated elite, the Egbe Omo Oduduwa; the NCNC was closely allied with the Ibo state union and played a significant role in the internal affairs of the party, while NPC was founded by the Fulani aristocracy” (p. 3). Subsequently, the AG’s leader was Chief Obafemi Awolowo, a Yoruba; the NCNC’s leader was Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, an Igbo; and the NPC’s leader was Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sarduna of Sokoto, a Fulani.
Therefore, it was found that history has a lot to do with the current state of political parties in Nigeria. In 1946, Nigeria was divided into 3 regions by the colonialists (as per the Richardson constitution). These divisions followed ethnic lines, such that the country was divided into three regions of the Yoruba, Hausa-Fulani, and Igbo. This greatly contributed to, or motivated, increased feelings of ‘regionalism’ among Nigerians.
The Northerners, Easterners, and Westerners wanted a sense of belonging and representation, meaning that each one of them was motivated to form a political party. In fact today’s political parties are more of regional representations other than national outfits. Even when a fourth region (South) was added to the original three after independence, Nigeria’s political parties still continue to take on a regional and/or ethnic outlook for purposes of convenience.
During the Fourth Republic, the ANPP has been considered as a predominantly Hausa-Fulani party while the AD is considered to be a Yoruba party (it is considered to be the direct successor to Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s Action group and Unity Party of Nigeria). APGA is considered to be an Igbo party; CAN as a Yoruba party (a re-incarnation of the A.G. or UPN); and the CPC is considered to be a Hausa-Fulani party.
It is only the ruling PDP that is thought to have a somewhat national outlook as the level of ethnic and/or tribal influence is quite minimal (but not absent). The 2011 general elections were the clearest indicator ever that even the PDP followed tribal and religious lines.
Most of the respondents reported that the other flaw of political parties in Nigeria is that they do not necessary command the respect of the masses across the country. Not even the ruling party can. In fact more recently the ruling party has been faced with mass defection following failure to satisfy its members and the electorate.
As was stated before, the lack of respect that political parties face from the masses is in part due to their being occupied and often run by politicians who are only hungry for power and keen to enrich themselves through political office. They have no genuine concerns for the masses that elect and vote for them.
This, once again, explains the lack of properly articulated party ideologies save perhaps at the times of elections when parties are supposed to have something valuable to present to the people. Even then, though, the whole electioneering process is usually a sham and only stage-managed to appear that it is in line with constitutional requirements. In the actual sense, political parties hardly ever adhere to constitutional requirements especially during time of elections. This has greatly undermined democracy in the country.
In fact one of the main reasons why the PDP has been in power since 1999 is the lack of an opposition party that is strong enough to oust it. Strength in this sense refers to ability to have a political ideology that is in favor of the people’s demands and aspirations. In Nigeria, there is no political party that has such an ideology.
The opposition parties are in fact not in any way different from the ruling party in terms of clear ideology and need to foster democracy. Instead, the political parties in the opposition are simply opposed to the fact that the ruling party has been in power for a very long time. The opposition, in essence, lacks any clear-cut ideology that can help it overcome the PDP.
Protection of Individual Rights
Just for purposes of emphasis, every part of democracy culminates in the individual’s freedom. A common feature of most democracies is the bill of rights that highlights the freedoms of the individual. The meaning of this tenet is that every individual has the freedom to do what they desire as long as that does not surpass the will of the majority. This means that an individual’s rights are restrained by law. Individual freedom is essential for a sustainable democracy to exist. The individual has to be free to do whatever they wish under the confines of the law. Therefore, individual freedom is vital for the survival of democracy.
The protection of the rights of the individual is an obligation of the government. Usually, there has to be a conducive environment created by the government within which individual rights have to be protected. Oftentimes this is achieved through appropriate legislation that ensures that rights of individuals are granted while those violating these rights are punished.
Whenever a government fails to either provide such a legal framework, then the door is opened to all forms of abuses and violations of individual rights. Sometimes there are legislations enacted to achieve this. However, failure to fully enforce them produces similar results: violation of the rights of individuals through different ways. In Nigeria, the government protects individual rights by providing a legal framework to handle cases of rights infringement. The inadequacies in the legal framework, however, have limited this protection to a few citizens.
It was found out that individual freedom in Nigeria is poor relative to other democracies. Individual freedom is the ultimate measure of democracy (U.S. Department of State, 2012). This is because democracy focuses on the individual. If the individual is not free, then the society is not free. It is important to note that there have considerable improvements in the last decade on individual freedom; nevertheless, individual freedoms are not entirely protected.
The main challenge to individual freedom in Nigeria is the power of the authority (Ituma and Simpson 2007). The government’s power and failure to implement the idea of democracy fully lead to discrimination of certain individuals. For instance, there are considerable discrepancies in individual rights among different groups in the country. One of discriminatory basis is gender.
It was also found that women’s rights are violated at different levels of government. Discrimination against women has been contrary to the provisions international law such as CEDAW which Nigeria has ratified as well as other domestic laws. Women in Nigeria are especially discriminated against in matters of politics as hardly ever are they given equal rights with men in political issues.
That aside, girls and women are often denied access to education and social services. Underage marriages are rampant in the country, with an approximated 43% of women being married before attaining the age of 18 years. This is in spite of the existence of the Child Rights Act of 2003 which seeks to protect children from violations of their rights (U.S. Department of State, 2012).
Unfortunately, the existence of Shari’a law in mostly the Northern states of Nigeria was found to be a major impediment to not just the implementation of the Child Rights Act but other human rights laws as well. This is because Shari’a law competes with these laws in a number of states. Under Shari’a law, women are effectively subservient to men (Toyo, 2006). Cultural beliefs and practices in other parts of the country have also contributed immensely to the violation of the rights of women, girls, and children (U.S. Department of State, 2012).
Abuses of individual freedoms have been observed not only by rebel and terror groups such as Boko Haram but also by government forces. The government itself has violated individual freedom with the legislature passing into law a bill that not only prohibited homosexuality, but also reprimanded those caught associating with homosexual individuals. While many developed democracies are advancing and allowing considerable freedoms for individuals’ Nigerian laws are retrogressive and oppressive to individual freedom (U.S. Department of State, 2012).
It was also found that Nigerian political parties are implicated in the current state of things regarding individual freedom. Individual rights are highly infringed upon by both government and rebel groups (Toyo 2006). Despite improvements in various aspects of government, there are still considerable challenges with individual rights. Recent cases of terrorism have compromised individual rights. Political parties have failed to protect individual rights and instead focus on power.
Having noted that, however, it was also established in the course of the study, especially from interviews, that the government was actually doing very little to protect individual rights of its citizens. This was partly attributed to the ongoing battle between the government and militants in the Niger Delta and other parts of the nation. The new threat posed by terror groups such as Boko Haram was especially noted as a threat to the people’s right to move freely in the country and the right to be protected by the government.
Actually, the government was accused of failing to act decisively against the militants, a state of affairs that has made the country to be almost under siege. Boko Haram has been seeking to form a separate state in the north of Nigeria where it is dominant. Both the threat posed by the group and the reasons for its formation and existence (unequal distribution of resources) were cited as being clear indications that the government is failing to grant and protect the rights of its citizens.
Every citizen, according to the constitution, has a right to state protection, to life, and to move about freely in the country. They have the right to own property in any part of the country and be free from oppression, torture, and other abuses. However, militant groups were cited as having violated most of these rights yet the government has done nothing, or very little, to tame them.
The case of the abduction of about 276 school girls from a secondary school in the northern town of Chibok in April by Boko Haram was a case repeated throughout the interviews. Interviewees expressed their frustration at the government having literally done nothing to either rescue the girls or apprehend those concerned. This failure to act by the government has been attributed to either lack of capacity on the part of the government to deal with the ever-threatening militants or simply the lack of political goodwill.
It has been reported that the girls have since been forced to convert to Islam, effectively denying them their right to practice a religion of their choice. In essence, the girls’ rights such as right to movement, right to education, right to state security and protection, right to equal opportunities, among others, have been and continue being violated due to their continued detention by the militants.
It was found that Boko Haram has also been notable for killings, bombings, and other attacks throughout the country. These have resulted in massive deaths, injuries, and the widespread destruction of property. All these are violations of the rights of the people affected, including the rights to life, the right to own property, and the right to state protection (U.S. Department of State, 2012).
In view of this state of affairs regarding the militant group and militancy in Nigeria in general, quite a number of respondents argued that how and when the issue of the abducted girls will be dealt with will in fact determine how Nigerians will perceive the government of Goodluck Jonathan especially in the forthcoming elections. Others, however, especially political pundits, dismissed any claims that the government would be punished by voters if it does not tackle Boko Haram. They said that, as usual, what will ultimately determine the outcome of the forthcoming elections will be ethnic and regional affiliation and not party ideology.
Another reported violation of individual rights was the state itself both directly and indirectly. The Nigerian police force was accused of directly violating the very law it is supposed to help enforce. Through the illegal detention and even killing of suspects, the police force has gained notoriety as one of the most brutal and corrupt yet ineffective police forces in the region.
Furthermore, many respondents recorded that in recent times, the police force has been targeting people suspected to be followers or sympathizers of Boko Haram and detaining them without charge or even killing them. Furthermore, the methods adopted in the identification of suspects have been at best discriminatory. These have been among the gravest violations of individual rights to a fair trial and to life as enshrined in the constitution (U.S. Department of State, 2012).
It was found that police checks and mounted roadblocks are an increasingly common sight in Nigeria. While this could appear to be a sign of enhanced security and so high levels of police protection over the citizens, this is not the case. Police checks at roadblocks have largely been used to harass motorists and other road users. The police at such roadblocks are actually extortionists who collect money from the road users without citing any legal reason for doing so (U.S. Department of State, 2012).
The worst affected are the poor people who have had to pay to get past. The wealthy have afforded to pass without any much trouble. Basically, therefore, the protection of individuals by the police force is skewed heavily in favor of the wealthy. In fact the wealthy in Nigeria tend to control the police, dictating what the police can or cannot do. This has greatly undermined human rights and subsequently stood in the way of sustainable democracy.
Quantity of Resources Committed to Achievement of Sustainable Democracy
The Nigerian government invests a considerable amount of resources and personnel for the achievement of sustainable democracy. Most the resources go into strengthening institutions such as the judiciary and the legislature. Political parties are also funded by the state to a limited extent.
These resources, however, are poorly managed and devoured by corruption agencies. This results in poor advancement in the democratic process. In other cases, the resources are insufficient to actually help foster democracy. Notable shortages of funding were reported in areas such as political parties, the judiciary, and the civil society. The civil society, which in dire need of resources from the state, has especially been rendered almost ineffective by lack of funding. In fact most of the funding to the civil society is obtained from well-wishers and foreign aid. Generally, the policies of the government regarding democracy are poor and have tended to undermine rather than enhance democracy.
Impediments to Sustainable Democracy
Nigeria’s democracy can be described as fledgling. This is because although efforts have been made to attain democracy, there are still many challenges that remain unaddressed. Therefore, sustainability remains to be a major challenge for Nigeria’s democracy. It would take a lot more effort for a truly sustainable democracy to be attained. Most of the factors that impede the development of a sustainable democracy in Nigeria have already been discussed in preceding sections. However, it is imperative to single them out on the basis of the findings of the study. These hindrances to sustainable democracy are discussed here below:
Ethnicity.
It was found that ethnicity is one of the greatest threats to sustainable democracy in Nigeria. As a country with over 165 different ethnic groups, a lot of political decisions are made on the basis of ethnicity. Because of ethnic affiliations, political parties in the country have been formed mainly on the basis of ethnicity. This is as opposed to ideology.
This in turn means that most political parties need not to have any clear ideologies as they are sure to win elections if they have sufficient ethnic support. In essence, political parties find no need for ideologies as ideologies are not the basis for voting. Nigerians vote on the basis of ethnicity and/or region.
It was discovered that while ethnicity is something that could be attributed to the colonialists who used it as a tool to divide and better govern Nigeria, it is nonetheless as lethal a weapon today as it was over fifty years ago. Unfortunately, ethnicity is working to the detriment of Nigerians especially in terms of achieving a sustainable democracy.
Unless ethnicity and/or regionalism are curbed, the role played by political parties in fostering democracy will remain pending and undone. This is because political parties will continue lacking any incentive to democratize. This is in turn because they will continue being assured that their ethnic backgrounds will suffice to give them the votes they need.
The argument here is that the roles played by political parties in fostering sustainable democracy are largely dependent on how these parties are pushed by their people or other circumstances. Without such push, the political parties will simply remain to be entities that play no or very little role in democratization. It is true they will take part in elections. However, electioneering alone cannot guarantee or even lead to sustainable democracy.
Sustainable democracy is only attainable when the electioneering is free and fair, and all contesters have equal access to campaign machinery. Voters, too, have to be allowed to make sober decisions without any form of bribery or coercion. More importantly, people have to be let to make conscious choices about virtually everything, most of all whether or not to take part in elections.
As has been noted, sustainable democracy goes beyond elections. Ensuring that human rights are granted is another way democracy can be made sustainable. The other five canons of democracy have to be adhered to as well. It was found that the greater the extent of ethnicity in Nigeria the lesser the chances that democracy will become sustainable.
Corruption.
Corruption is still very rampant in Nigeria. In fact compared to the time of independence, Nigeria is more corrupt today than then. Corruption has especially been entrenched in the country due to the long years of military rule. However, even after the end of military rule in the country, corruption still remains to be rampant and a major hindrance to sustainable democracy.
It was found that many politicians have not cared much about involving the people in their political activities because they know they have ways of corruptly getting voted into political offices anyway. Under normal circumstances, every political party and its candidates have to have a proper political ideology which they advocate for. This ideology has to be inspired by or based on the people’s demands, needs, and aspirations.
Corruption provides an opportunity for people, the electorate, to be bypassed in the electoral process. This in turn is a great threat to democracy. There can be no democracy, sustainable or otherwise, if the electorate is not allowed to play its part for whatever reason. Democracy in all its facets emphasizes the role and place of the people in governance. The people have to be heard and respected. Their decisions through the vote of the majority have to be adhered to.
The author believes that corruption in Nigeria has, unfortunately, greatly undermined this. With the wealthy politicians able to pay their way to political office almost unchecked, the people have often had to contend with so-called ‘elected’ leaders who are in the actual sense not elected but imposed on them. Such politicians who get into political office corruptly were determined to be threats to democracy because they keep acting corruptly in order to stay in power.
Of even great concern for Nigeria was the discovery, in the course of the study, that not only are the politicians corrupt but almost every other participant is. Election officers, the voters, the police, the election observers, and even the judicial officers to whom electoral cases are taken are all known to engage in some form of corruption.
Sometimes even the international election monitors have allegedly been compromised to give favorable reports about otherwise fraudulent, unfair, and compromised elections. This has been often done when the incumbent governments have won and is common during general elections. This means that the whole system of democracy in Nigeria abets corruption in one way or the other. Under such circumstances, sustainable democracy cannot be achieved.
Militancy and conflicts.
The other major factor found to be impending sustainable democracy in Nigeria was conflicts. In Nigeria, conflicts abound; and they take on different forms and have different purposes. However, the most common form of conflict in Nigeria pits the government and various militant groups. Militant groups in the country are inspired by different issues such as failure by the state to ensure equitable distribution of resources, continued Western influence in the country, and oil revenue distribution (Siollun, 2009). Other motivations behind conflicts include the need for a separate Islamic state in the north of the country that is governed purely on Shari’a law.
The prevalent nature of conflicts in Nigeria has greatly undermined democracy. This was found to be mainly because democracy cannot take root and thrive in a state of conflict. Echoing what was found in the literature review, respondents noted that conflicts of all kinds make people more concerned about other more important needs such as security and food than about democracy.
For Nigeria to attain a sustainable democracy, therefore, it has to deal with conflicts. Militants are the greatest threat to democracy. They abduct, kill, main, wound, and detain people in violation of these people’s rights as human beings. As long as basic rights and freedoms are not granted and guaranteed by the state, then sustainable democracy remains only a distant dream.
Poverty and Nigeria’s overreliance on foreign aid.
It was also found out that another major hindrance to Nigeria’s endeavor to attain sustainable democracy is its perennial reliance on foreign aid. This is a critical factor because it was found to have influenced the state of democracy in Nigeria since independence to date. Foreign aid, as was found in the course of the literature review, is usually tied to certain outcomes. The donor state or agency expects something in return for the aid. In the case of Nigeria, most of its foreign aid comes from China, the EU, and the US.
While aid from the EU and the US has been tied with commitments from Nigeria to foster democracy, aid from China, which has increased significantly over the last decade, has actually tended to encourage impunity and disregard for the law. This is because Chinese aid to Nigeria is given purely on the basis of Nigeria’s ability to provide it with oil and other natural resources. There are no other conditions or requirements for the aid such as good governance, transparency, and adherence to human rights all of which are key ingredients of democracy.
If anything, China has tended to encourage Nigerian political leaders to commit more human rights violations because they support the government in dealing with militants in the Niger region. It was found that although it is right to address the militancy problem, the manner in which it is addressed by China is wrong.
Force and general brutality has been used to deal with militants who allegedly disrupt the flow of oil by vandalizing pipelines. Through Chinese funds, militants have been oppressed and their human rights violated. This way, China’s foreign aid to Nigeria could be said to be said to be more of an impediment to democracy that it is an enhancer of the same.
On the contrary, American (US) and EU aid to Nigeria has helped enhance democracy. The only problem is that EU and US aid to Nigeria is reducing, meaning that demands for democratic reforms are slowly being reduced as well even as the aid reduces. Bottom-line is that as long as Nigeria continues to rely on aid from China and other countries which have no place for democracy or do not highly regard democracy, then it will hardly attain sustainable democracy.
Yet Nigeria has not chosen to rely on foreign aid from any foreign nation or entity. Instead, the acute poverty in the country has forced it to do so. It was found in the course of the research that although Nigeria is resource-rich, these resources have failed to help the people get out of poverty. Instead – and ironically so – it is as a result of the abundance of natural resources such as oil that has pushed Nigerian people deeper into poverty.
Furthermore, these subsidies have resulted in massive corruption and poverty, misery and many other social ills that bedevil Nigerian society today. Yet such fuel subsidies would never have been put in place if Nigeria’s oil was not exported abroad to economically benefit the rich capitalist nations (Fleck & Kilby, 2010). Under such conditions, it is not possible for democracy to take root – or even to be contemplated seriously.
Religious bigotry and intolerance.
Respondents were almost in agreement that the problem of religious bigotry is slowly growing in Nigeria. Islamists have especially taken religious fundamentalism and bigotry in the country to very high levels. As a result of this, they hardly ever have regard for the people of other religious faiths, especially the Christians. Conflicts pitting Muslims and Christians have continued and even escalated long after the Fourth Republic came into being.
With such religious intolerance, it is hard, even impossible, for true sustainable democracy to be entrenched in the country. This is because freedom of worship and respect for the divergent religious views are critical ingredients of a true democracy. Religious intolerance is hampering efforts to entrench sustainable democracy in Nigeria. If anything, most of the conflicts in Nigeria are caused by either ethnicity or religious intolerance. As a result, Nigeria is almost equally divided into Muslims in the North of the country and Christians in the South.
The religious divisions have tended to compensate for where there is lack of ethnic affiliation. This has made Nigerian politics to be driven by ethnicity and/or religion. Where religion is not an issue, ethnic is. And where ethnicity is not a big issue, religion is. To this end, therefore, Nigeria’s efforts to achieve a sustainable democracy continue being hampered by religious intolerance and bigotry.
Impunity and poor governance.
Failure by certain people, especially politicians, to adhere to the rule of law has been another major hindrance to the achievement of a sustainable democracy in Nigeria. Actually, findings from both desk research and interviews revealed that the major problem with regard to sustainable democracy in Nigeria is not the lack of an appropriate legal framework upon which democratic principles can be founded but the consistent disregard of these laws.
It was reported that Nigeria has gained notoriety throughout the world for being a country full of impunity. Unfortunately, the most culpable are the very top leaders of the country, notably politicians and prominent businessmen. Impunity has seen the law being disregarded; and any attempts to hold those accountable for flouting the law have oftentimes been met with bribery and corrupt dealings.
The poor governance structures of Nigeria have basically reinforced the tendency by some people, especially the wealth and powerful, to blatantly disregard the law and act as though there was no law. Democracy is founded on the law. If this very law is flouted without any punishment, then democracy is good as nonexistent. This, unfortunately, is the position Nigerian democracy finds itself in.
Media censorship and an Ill-equipped civil society.
It was also found out that the civil society has been either overwhelmed or simply incapacitated in its role of holding the government to account. In most successful democracies, the civil society plays a leading role in fostering democracy. This it does and achieves by pushing agenda that is a reflection of the welfare and needs of the electorate. Together with the media, the civil society plays a very important role in fostering democracy such that its absence or incapacity renders democracy almost impossible to realize and sustain.
This was a problem reported in Nigeria as well. It was found that both the civil society and the media are extremely silent. The silence, according to respondents, is due to the continued crackdown on both institutions which started in the age of military rule but which has not completely ended. While it is true that new laws aimed at strengthening the civil society and the media have been enacted, impunity has eroded the gains made.
Media independence has been compromised a lot to an extent that free media is rare. Where there is free media, the level of freedom is questionable, often violated by selfish political interests and corruption. The media is the voice through which the public speaks. It is also the one charged with the duty of acting in the oversight role against the government especially where there is a weak or almost nonexistent opposition such as in Nigeria. Unfortunately, the media has only played these roles to a limited extent because of the challenges of rampant corruption and impunity.
CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusions and Recommendations
This final chapter of the dissertation presents a summary of the study and draws conclusions. The conclusions are made on the basis of the findings of the study. The chapter also makes appropriate recommendations for policymakers. These recommendations are meant to serve as action points for the government and other policymakers in Nigeria regarding achievement of sustainable democracy.
Summary and Conclusions
Sustainable democracy is an elusive concept that has been accomplished by only a few nations across the world. There is no denying, however, the significance of democracy in the betterment of the world. It is not by surprise that most of the flourishing countries across the world are under democratic rule. This underscores the need there is for developing a sustainable democratic governance system across the world. The challenge, however, has been associated with the sacrifices required to meet the standards of sustainable democracy. The institutions responsible for the achievement and management of sustainable democracy are paramount in the process. Pivotal among these institutions are political parties.
Democracy is an important part of social and economic empowerment. This system of governance is not perfect but is the best of the governing systems available across the world. There is a need to enhance the need for sustainable democracy, especially in developing countries such as Nigeria. Nigeria’s success is based on the ability of the country to build a sustainable democracy that respects the principle rules of democracy and favors the public over a few elite.
The main problem that led to this study was the role of political parties in creating sustainable democracy in Nigeria. Although the country has many political parties that are flourishing, it is still unclear why sustainable democracy there has remained elusive. An examination of the Nigerian democratic and political systems based on the tenets of democracy reveals a number of issues. The aforementioned tenets are the worth of the individual, equality of all persons, majority rule and minority rights, the necessity of compromise, and individual freedom.
The first issue was that Nigeria is a country where attaining sustainable democracy remains a major challenge. The country, independent since 1960, holds to a fledgling democracy which is bogged by innumerable obstacles. These obstacles spell doom for Nigeria’s endeavor to attain sustainable democracy. Most of Nigeria’s challenges with sustainable democracy have been attributed to its historical past. The country’s elongated past under military rule has been especially a major contributor to the current state of fledgling democracy. However, there is hope, but only if the challenges impeding democracy are addressed. For instance, the leaders of opposition parties, particularly from the PDP got disgruntled at being unable to get the power and wealth. Such disgruntlements are what hinder the fight for greater democracy.
It is actually defeating of logic and even curious that traditional leaders in Africa are sidelined politically – they are not let to take part in active political processes – yet they are used by politicians to get votes in times of elections. Many are the places in Africa where politicians have come to understand that winning the support of a local or traditional leader is the key to winning the election in his area of influence or jurisdiction. That is, the influence of these traditional leaders is so great that no political leader can win approval of the people without the traditional leaders endorsing the politician.
The main impediments to sustainable democracy in Nigeria are ethnicity, corruption, militancy and conflicts, poverty and Nigeria’s overreliance on foreign aid. The others are religious bigotry and intolerance, impunity and poor governance, media censorship, and an ill-equipped civil society. Furthermore, political parties in Nigeria have not played their role in democracy as would have been expected. Actually, political parties have been among the main causes of the fledgling democracy in the country. This has in turn been linked to ethnicity, a major problem in the country especially when it comes to seeking sustainable democracy.
From the findings of the study, several conclusions can be made. First and foremost, Nigeria is yet to achieve a sustainable democracy. This is in spite of the country having made significant strides towards democracy especially since the ascension to power of the Fourth Republic. The aforementioned challenges Nigeria faces in its endeavor to attain sustainable democracy have resulted in part from the country’s history as a colonial state and later as a state ruled by the military.
Secondly, political parties of Nigeria have not been effective in playing their democratic roles. They have been largely involved in politicking and have in the process forgotten that democracy in the country is largely dependent on them especially in what they do or not do. Thereason for this state of affairs is that political parties are used more for acquisition of political power than for helping bring about sustainable democracy. Although this is indeed part of their purposes, the political parties have often neglected the greater purpose of involving the people in governance. This effectively renders democracy impossible as democracy cannot exist apart or separate from the people.
Finally, Nigeria rates poorly in terms of all the five canons of democracy. It is not that the country has not made any strides towards sustainable democracy. Instead, the strides being made, or have been made, are undermined by the challenges cited above. Yet there remain opportunities for the country to improve if it can find ways of overcoming these challenges. More specifically, if Nigeria can implement the following recommendations, then it has more chances of attaining sustainable democracy in the foreseeable future.
Recommendations
The first recommendation is for Nigeria to find a way of ending negative ethnicity. Negative ethnicity is not of any use to the country because it forces people to make political choices and decisions on the basis of ethnic and/or religious affiliation. This way, political parties and politicians find no motivation to involve the people in the decision-making processes as they should.
Secondly, there is need for graft to be fought both in the private and public sector. Endemic corruption has continued to undermine democracy because it perverts the way of justice. If politicians can find a ‘perverted’ way of getting to power other than through free and fair elections where all people take part, then democracy is as good as nonexistent.
There is also need to ensure that appropriate laws that aim to promote rather than undermine democracy are enacted. These laws have to be respected and adhered to all. In essence, dealing with impunity is a precondition for success of democracy in Nigeria. This is in turn only possible if corruption is addressed. Strengthening of institutions such as the judiciary, the legislature, the civil society, and the media is therefore paramount. Freedom and independence of these institutions cannot be compromised.
There is also need for conflicts and militancy to be addressed; and for poverty to be eradicated or at least reduced. The long-running conflicts in the country can be resolved by having the government working to ensure that resources, especially at the national level, are distributed equitably among all the people of the country. Fairness in resource sharing is also likely to contribute to reduced militancy.
To address poverty and reduce the country’s overreliance on foreign aid, there has to be a change in the government’s priorities. Investments in social programs and dealing with corruption should be given priority. Democracy will never take root in Africa unless the challenges of underdevelopment and poverty are overcome (Azeez, 2004). This in turn means that the structural ties that exist between the economies of developed nations and those of developed nations have to be severed. This is in addition to the structural relationships between the two. It is only through such actions that a level playing field would be created where the developing countries could move forward not by pressure or influence from the developed world but at their own pace. This is because developing nations cannot compete evenly in international trade and cannot engender growth solely within itself. Sharing available resources, especially oil, more equitably will also help solve the problem of poverty (Basedau & Stroh, 2009). In African states such as Nigeria, resources have failed to help the people get out of poverty. Instead, and ironically so, it is as a result of the abundance of natural resources such as oil that has pushed people deeper into poverty. And while the West continues to blame Nigeria’s poverty, civil strife, and corruption on its lack of good governance practices and failure to fully embrace democracy on the government of the day, the real source of the problem is the West itself.
To this end, the West’s approach to foreign aid to Africa should not only be maintained but expanded to reach other parts of the world. However, it would be more beneficial if the requirements for democracy targeted the regimes of the African states and not the innocent citizens. In essence, the kind of aid that is tied to political, social, and economic reforms that constitute democracy should be that meant for development assistance and not for humanitarian purposes. Through this approach, it would be possible for regimes that undermine democracy to be punished without affecting the innocent citizens.
Apart from the common argument that democracy is seen as a colonial agenda and is therefore rejected on that basis only, Jega (2007) stresses that democracy as is currently constituted and presented to Africa is overly critical of the African people and their capacity to embrace it in the first place. First and foremost, the West has been leading the rest of the world in criticizing Africa’s alleged poor development and governance record. While this criticism could be true, the way it has been done leaves a lot to be desired.
The other way through which democracy could actually be made to work for Africa is ensuring that there is not just the capacity but also the intention. It can be argued that African democracy as currently constituted or practiced is largely a project of external players. It is the West that is keen on establishing democracy in Africa. While this is good and even worth encouraging, it is also a hindrance to sustainable democracy. This is because democracy cannot take root in Africa if Africans are not keen on having it in the first place.
Unlike in the West where there is capacity, Africa lacks capacity to have democracy. This could be attributable to the continent’s myriad of challenges that include underdevelopment, poverty, and conflict. Under such circumstances, Siollun (2009) supposes that there are no sufficient resources to set up the necessary institutions and invest in other aspects that lead to or promote democracy. These include setting up commissions and formulating legal frameworks to guide the process of democracy
Finally, there is need for the government, in conjunction with the private sector, to address the challenge of religious bigotry and intolerance. Nigeria is segmented on the basis of religious affiliation today because of religious bigotry and ethnicity. The two need not to be obstacles to democracy because when handled properly they can in fact enhance democracy rather than undermine it. Radical religious views are the main source and cause of religious bigotry and intolerance in Nigeria. Therefore, radical militant groups, especially those from the Islamic faith and keen on having Shari’s law in place, have to be fought more forcefully. Such groups include Boko Haram.
References
Abizadeh, A. (2008). Democratic theory and border coercion: No right to unilaterally control your own borders. Political theory, 36 (1), 37-65.
Armstrong, E. (2005). Integrity, transparency and accountability in public administration: Recent trends, regional and international developments and emerging issues. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 1-10.
Azeez, A. (2004). The Dynamics of Ethnic Politics and Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria: A
Prognosis. In: D. Oni et al. (ed), Nigeria and Globalization: Discourses on Identify Politics and Social Conflict. Ibadan, Nigeria: Stirling – Horden Publishers.
Azeez, A. (2009). Ethnicity, Party Politics and Democracy in Nigeria: Peoples Democratic Party
(PDP) as Agent of Consolidation? Stud Tribes Tribals, 7 (1), 1-9.
Basedau, M. & Stroh, A. (2009).Ethnicity and party systems in francophone sub-Saharan Africa. German Institute of Global and Area Studies. Working Paper, 100. Retrieved from http://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/system/fukes/pulications/wp100 basedau-stroh.pdf
Berman, B. (2010). Ethnicity and Democracy in Africa. Japan International Cooperation Agency Research Institute. Retrieved from
https://jica-ri.jica.go.jp/publication/assets/JICA-RI_WP_No.22_2010.pdf
Brown, J. (2009). Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), 313-342.
Brownlee, J., Masoud, T., & Reynolds, A. (2013).The Arab Spring: the politics of transformation in North Africa and the Middle East, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Canache, D. & Allison, M. (2005).Perceptions of political corruption in Latin American democracies.Latin American Politics and Society, 47(3), 91-111.
Canivez, P. (2011). Democracy and Compromise. In Approaches to Legal Rationality.
New York, U.S.A: Springer.
Cheibub, J., Gandhi, J., & Vreeland, J. (2010). Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public
Choice, 143(1-2), 67-101.
Chen, P. &Redner, S. (2005). Majority rule dynamics in finite dimensions. Physical review,
71(3), 036-101.
Dabashi, H. (2012). The Arab Spring: The End of Postcolonialism. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dunning, T. (2004). Conditioning the effects of aid: Cold War politics, donor credibility, and
Democracy in Africa. International Organization, 58(02), 409-423.
El-Hewie, M. (2013).Islam Facts and Fiction and the Fight for Egypt, Lodi, USA: Shaymaa
Publishing.
Elischer, S. (2008). Ethnic coalitions of convenience and commitment: Political parties and party s
ystems in Kenya. Working Paper, 68. German Institute of Global and Area Studies. Retrieved from http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2009/1628/pdf/wp68_elischer.pdf
Erdmann, G. (2007). The cleavage model, ethnicity and voter alignment in Africa: Conceptual
and methodological problems revisited (No. 63).
German institute of global and area studies working papers. Retrieved from
http://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/system/files/publications/wp63_erdmann.pdf
Fleck, R. & Kilby, C. (2010). Changing aid regimes? US foreign aid from the Cold War to the
War on Terror.Journal of Development Economics, 91(2), 185-197.
Frank, E. & Ukpere, W. (2012).The Impact of Military Rule on Democracy in Nigeria. Journal
of Social Sciences, 33(3), 285-292.
Freitag, M. & Stadelmann-Steffen, I. (2010).Stumbling block or stepping stone? The influence
of direct democracy on individual participation in parliamentary elections. Electoral Studies, 29(3), 472-483.
Gerring, J. & Thacker, S. (2004). Political institutions and corruption: The role of unitarism and
parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science, 34(02), 295-330.
Howard, P. (2011). The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information
Technology and Political Islam, New York, U.S.A: Oxford University Press.
Hyden, G. & Okigbo, C. (2002).The media and the two waves of democracy. Media and
Democracy in Africa, 29-54.
Hydén, G., Leslie, M., & Ogundimu, F. (2003). Media and democracy in Africa. New Jersey, U.S.A: Transaction Publishers.
Greener, S. (2008).Business Research Methods. 1st ed. London, U.K: Ventus publishing.
Guest, G. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Ihonvbere, J. (1996). Are Thing’s Falling Apart? The Military and the Crisis of Democratisation in Nigeria.The Journal of Modern African Studies, 34 (2), 193-226.
Ikelegbe, A. (2005). State, ethnic militias, and conflict in Nigeria. Canadian Journal of African Studies/La Revue canadienne des étudesafricaines, 39(3), 490-516.
Ituma, A., & Simpson, R. (2007). Moving beyond Schein’s typology: Individual career anchors in the context of Nigeria. Personnel Review, 36(6), 978-995.
Jega, A. (2007). Democracy, good governance and development in Nigeria: critical essays. Ibadan, Nigeria: Spectrum Books Limited.
Johnston, M. (1997). Public officials, private interests, and sustainable democracy: When politics
And corruption meet. Corruption and the global economy, 61-82. Retrieved from http://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/12/3iie2334.pdf
Lancaster, G. (2005). Research Methods in Management: A concise introduction to research in management and business consultancy. Oxford, U.K: Butterworth-Heinemann Publishers.
Leib, E. (2007). Comparison of Criminal Jury Decision Rules in Democratic Countries, A. Ohio
St. J. Crim. L., 5, 629.
Levinson, S. (2010). Compromise and Constitutionalism. Pepp. L. Rev., 38, 821.
Lind, G. (2008). Teaching students to speak up and to listen to others: Cultivating moral
Democratic competencies. Doing democracy and social justice in education: Political literacy for all students, 319-335.
Mansbridge, J. et al (2010). “The Place of Self‐Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative
Democracy. “Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 64-100.
Møller, J. & Skaaning, S. (2013). Regime Types and democratic sequencing. Journal of
Democracy, 24(1), 142-155.
Ojo, E. (2006). Human Rights and Sustainable Democracy in Nigeria. Journal of Social Science, 13(1), 15-29.
Okoosi-Simbine, A. T. (2011). Corruption in Nigeria. State, Economy, and Society in Post-Military Nigeria, 157.
Olarinmoye, O. O. (2008). Godfathers, political parties and electoral corruption in Nigeria. African Journal of political science and international relations, 2(4), 66-73.
Olken, B. A. (2010). Direct democracy and local public goods: Evidence from a field experiment
In Indonesia. American Political Science Review, 104(02), 243-267.
Onwumechili, C. (1998). African Democratization and military coups. Westport: Praeger, 1998.
Ruane, J. (2005). Essentials of Research Methods: A Guide to Social Science Research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Saunders, M., Thornhill, A., & Lewis, P. (2009).Research Methods for Business Students. London: Prentice Hall.
Shah, A. (2006). Corruption and decentralized public governance. World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper, (3824).
Siollun, M. (2009).Oil, politics and violence: Nigeria’s military coup culture (1966-1976). New York: Algora Publishing.
Soludo, C. (2005). The Political Economy of Sustainable Democracy in Nigeria. Abuja: Federal Government of Nigeria.
Springer, S. (2011). Public space as emancipation: meditations on anarchism, radical democracy,
Neoliberalism and violence. Antipode, 43(2), 525-562.
Sung, H. (2004). Democracy and political corruption: A cross-national comparison. Crime, Law
And Social Change, 41(2), 179-193.
Toyo, N. (2006). Revisiting Equality as a Right: The Minimum Age of Marriage Clause in the Nigerian Child Rights Act, 2003.Third World Quarterly, 27(7), 1299-1312.
Ujo, A. (2000). Understanding political parties in Nigeria. Kaduna: Kladmidas Publishers.
Ukiwo, U. (2003). Politics, ethno-religious conflicts and democratic consolidation in Nigeria.The Journal of Modern African Studies, 41(1), 115-138.
Ukiwo, U. (2005). The study of ethnicity in Nigeria. Oxford Development Studies, 33(1), 7-23.
U.S. Department of State (2012).2011 Human Rights Reports: Nigeria. Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved from< http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2011/af/186229.htm
Vanderstoep, S., & Johnston, D. (2009). Research Methods for Everyday Life: Blending
Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wright, J., & Winters, M. (2010).The politics of effective foreign aid. Annual Review of Political
Science, 13, 61-80.
Appendices
Appendix A
Table 1:
Nigerian Leaders from 1960 to date
| Name | Period | Type of Regime |
| AbubakarTafawaBalewa | 1 October 1960 to 15 January 1966 | Elected Civilian |
| General Aguiyi J.T. Ironsi | 15 January 1966 to 29 July 1966 | Military |
| General Yakubu Jack Gowon | 29 July 1966 to 29 July 1975 | Military |
| General MurtalaMuhammed | July 1975 to 13 February 1976 | Military |
| General Olusegun Obasanjo | 13 February 1976 to 1 October 1979 | Military |
| Shehu Usman AliyuShagari | 1 October 1979 to 31 December 1983 | Elected Civilian |
| General MuhammaduBuhari | 31 December 1983 to 27 August 1985 | Military |
| General Ibrahim Babangida | 27 August 1985 to 27 August 1993 | Military |
| Ernest OladeindeShonekan | 27 August 1993 to 17 November 1993 | Unelected Civilian |
| General Sani Abacha | 17 November 1993 to 8 June 1998 | Military |
| General AbdulsalamAbubakar | 8 June 1998 to 29 May 1999 | Military |
| Olusegun Obasanjo | 29 May 1999 to 29 May 2007 | Elected Civilian (PDP) |
| Umaru Musa Yar’Adua | 29 May 2007 to 5 May 2010 | Elected Civilian (PDP) |
| GoodluckEbele Jonathan | 5 May 2010 to date | Elected Civilian (PDP) |
Appendix B
A list of Nigeria’s political parties starting with the Fourth Republic in 1999 to date
- Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN)
- Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD)
- Alliance for Democracy (AD)
- All Progressives Congress (APC)
- African Democratic Congress (ADC)
- All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA)
- All People’s Party (APP)
- African Renaissance Party (ARP)
- Conscience People’s Congress [CPC]
- Communist Party of Nigeria (CPN)
- Democratic Alternative (DA)
- Democratic People’s Party (Nigeria) (DPP)
- Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM)
- Fresh Democratic Party (FDP)
- Labor Party (LP)
- Masses Movement of Nigeria (MMN)
- National Conscience Party (NCP)
- New Democrats (ND)
- National Democratic Party (NDP)
- People’s Democratic Party (PDP)
- Progressive Peoples Alliance (PPA)
- People Progressive Party (PPP)
- People’s Redemption Party (PRP)
- People’s Salvation Party (PSP)
- Social Democratic Mega Party (SDMP)
- Socialist Party of Nigeria (SPN)
- United Nigeria People’s Party (UNPP)
- United Progressive Party (UPP)
Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.