Political Party 4

Global Journal of Political Science and Administration
Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014
Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
POLITICAL PARTIES AND DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION IN NIGERIA’S

FOURTH REPUBLIC
Akubo, A. Aduku and Yakubu, Adejo Umoru*

Centre for Inter - African and Human Development Studies (CIDES), Jos, Nigeria
School of General Studies, Federal Polytechnic, Kaura Namoda, Zamfara State, Nigeria
ABSTRACT: Political parties play very critical roles in democratization of any nation. Central to the
successes and failures of electoral politics is the cardinal and strategic functions of this all important and
an integral organ of democratization which is core to its development. The dawn of the Nigerian fourth
republic has witnessed renewed and sustained activities of political parties which is the most complex and
critical institutions of democracy but undoubtedly has either shaped or stagnated the deepening and
consolidation of democracy. With heavy reliance on secondary data supported by analytical approach,
the paper x-rayed the role of political parties in the democratic consolidation of Nigeria’s Fourth
Republic. The climax of the analysis is the identified challenges plaguing democratic consolidation since
the commencement of the fourth republic i.e.: Lack of institutionalization and personalization of political
parties; Godfatherism; Absence of internal democracy within the political parties and incessant
party/political violence. The party system in Nigeria is still weak and vulnerable with no visible signs of
adding value to the democratic consolidation. It is recommended that issues of organizational capacity,
effective leadership, internal democracy, discipline, institutionalization and personalization, ideological
platforms of mobilization and linkage to civil society and the masses should be addressed.
KEYWORDS: Political Parties, Democratic Consolidation, Fourth Republic, Democracy,

Electoral Politics, Nigeria.
INTRODUCTION
Mainstream rhetoric in Nigeria media and popular discourses of the polity is often centred on the
claim that Nigeria is “consolidating its democracy”. The evidence on the ground, however,
contradicts this claim (Momoh, 2013:1). It is perhaps most appropriate to liken the relationship
between political parties and the sustenance of democratic rule in a particular society to that
which exists between the umbilical cord and the foetus (Yagboyaju, 2012:54). Political parties
are at the heart of examining the health of any form of democracy (Orji, 2013:1), for example,
maintains that ‘to talk, today, about democracy, is to talk about a system of competitive political
parties. Their roles and activities are critical in any assessment of democratic practice (Momoh,
2013:1). With the transition to civil rule in 1999 (Signalling the commencement of the fourth
republic), political parties had the mandate to produce the right calibre of people to govern
(Momoh, 2013:1). One of the most complex and critical institutions of democracy is the political
party (ies) (Omotola 2009).
79
ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Political parties are traditionally the most significant intermediary organization in democratic
societies. Students of political parties have commonly associated them with democracy itself
(Orji, 2013:1). Political parties, as “makers” of democracy, have been so romanticized that
scholars claim that neither democracy nor democratic societies are thinkable without them
(Omotola 2009). In other words, the existence of vibrant political parties is a sine qua non for
democratic consolidation in any polity (Dode, 2010). It is patently ironic that political parties
largely pursue (and profess) democracy outside the gates and resist it within the gates (Ibeanu,
2013:1). Competitive party and electoral politics is expected to deepen and consolidate the
democratic transition, which the country embarked upon in May 1999 (Jinadu, 2013:2). Well-
functioning political parties are essential for the success of electoral democracy and overall
political development of Nigeria (Adetula and Adeyi, 2013:3).
Indeed, democracy is unthinkable in the absence of viable political parties. Parties are expected
to participate in the political socialization of electorates, contribute to the accumulation of
political power, facilitate recruitment of political leadership, and serve as a unifying force in a
divided polity (Omotola, 2010:125). The objectives which party regulation seeks to achieve,
including the lingering question of internal party democracy, namely the push and pull of
struggles to get political parties to respect their own rules and act in line with democratic
principles in the conduct of their internal affairs, all remains central to the wider consolidation of
democracy in Nigeria (Ibeanu, 2013: 1).
Anchoring on platforms offered by political parties, citizens make demands on the state, support
specific policy positions, and participate in public policy making and implementation. Political
parties therefore provide the vital linkage between citizens and the state, governors and the
governed, and elites and the masses (Lawson 1980). The nature, behavior and performance of
political parties and the nature of party relations with other parties, groups, and even the state
have consequences for the nature of governance, integration, stability and security (Ikelegbe,
2013:7).
The character and tendencies exhibited by political parties has implications for democratic
sustenance in the country (Pogoson, 2013: 5). The political party is a critical, formal,
institutional, organizational and mobilizational player in the political process particularly in
relation to power, democracy, governance, governments and economy (Ikelegbe, 2013:4). The
nature of political parties and the nature of party politics have consequences for the nature of
governance (democratic consolidation), integration, stability and security. The performance of
political parties in terms of articulation, aggregation, representation and organization are critical
to political accountability, communication, democratic consolidation and political stability
(Ikelegbe, 2013:4).
Is our democracy consolidating or deepening? What is the state of our party politics? How has
political parties faired in the consolidation of the Nigeria’s fourth republic? What are the bulks
80

on the way of political parties in democratic consolidation of Nigeria’s fourth republic? These
issues and many more form the nucleus of this piece. Our desire in this voyage is to thoroughly
interrogate and dissect the issues raised.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The history of Nigeria’s party politics since the coming into force of the 1979 Constitution, and
even before it, shows strong deficits in the practice of competitive party and electoral politics.
The persistent and seemingly intractable deficits include: (i) the personalization of politics, and
the prevalence of the God-father syndrome; (ii) the negative influence of money; (iii) lack of
internal democracy, especially the imposition of candidates; and (iv) election-related violent
political conflict within and between political parties (Ibrahim, 2007; Ibrahim and Aturu, 2009:
34-46 cited in Jinadu, 2013: 5). The major parties in Nigeria have been near similar in
composition, policy positions, manifestoes, ideological leanings and strategies (Omotola
2009:622-626). Consequently the parties are not organizational platforms for alternative views
and programmes of governance and development but associations, factions, cliques, and
networks for power and resource struggles, ‘Bereft of clear ideological identity and commitment,
and issue based politics (Omotola 2009:612).
The parties lacking in ideological content as a platform for action, identification, mobilization,
legitimization and conflicts management (Nnoli 2003:181-183), the parties have turned to
money, identity, patronage and violence. Beyond ideology and programmes, perhaps with a few
exceptions, the performance of the parties in terms of organization, functions, operations and
management has been dismally poor (Nwosu 2008:136). The parties are not democratic and
popular organizations, as they have lacked basic liberal internal mechanisms, standardized rules
and regulations for actual consultation and collective decision making. The parties being
platforms for personal, sectional and patronage struggles and interests, have lacked a strong
directive, controlling, disciplinary and unifying core that holds together (Omotola 2009:612).
Whilst political parties are at the core of de-democratisation in Nigeria, evidence suggests that
elections have been the weakest link in our quest for democracy in Nigeria (TMG, 2003;
Anifowose and Babawale ed, 2004 cited in ikelegbe, 2013). This primarily arises from the fact
that the agencies and groups that are recognised to facilitate, moderate and participate in the
elections have not taken the vocation with the best ethical and professional commitment
(Adetula, 2008 quoted in ikelegbe, 2013). The political parties became vehicles for de-
democratisation. They not only undermined and prejudiced the highly flawed party primaries but
they also determined its outcome. Ever since, internal party democracy and the selection of
candidates have become a highly vexed issue. These group of people all constituted one-third of
delegates (Momoh, 2013:14).
81

What they tend to do is to create channels for adversary relationships and facilitate a permanent
opposition mentality. The nearest they appear to get to their conventional roles is to represent the
democratic forms but not substance of promoting resolution of contending options. The Elite
make use of them as mechanisms for perpetuating division and cleavages, fighting among
themselves, securing power and intimidating their opponents (Tukur, 2004:570). Local leaders
use them to obtain public office or influence or get businesses or settle scores. As for the general
populations, their main purpose of joining or working for political parties tends to be for
commerce, for blackmail, or to satisfy immediate requirements for small sums of money. So at
the end of the day, the working of the parties results in factions, disagreements, rancour and
violence. The outcome could be break-up and further creation of room for opportunists,
exhibitionists and time-savers (Tukur, 2004:570).
The three main political parties during the First republic (1960-66) were seriously afflicted by
ethnicity and were regionally based, with Nigeria People’s Congress (NPC), National Council
for Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) and Action Group (AG) being more popular and
obtaining their support and dispensing patronage to people of the North, East and West
respectively. Politics then has been correctly described largely as one that was based on a tripod,
which eventually constituted one of the major reasons for the collapse of that republic through
the first Nigerian military coup of January 15, 1966 (Olagunju, 1992). It was in response to the
problem of ethnicity as a major contributor to the collapse of the party system and the First
republic, that the Murtala/Obasanjo regime decided to put policies in place that will re-position
political parties for national integration during the Second republic (1979-1984) (Simbine,
2013:2).
Hence, in the electoral provisions contained in the transition programme of that period, the
military attempted to solve the problem of ethnicity in their formation and management by
requiring political parties to have “national spread” and to be national in outlook and
programme, in order to be eligible for registration and subsequent participation in elections
(Simbine, 2013:2). Thus, only five political parties out of fifty political associations that applied
for registration were eventually registered. These parties were the Great Nigeria People’s Party
(GNPP), the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), the Nigerian People’s Party (NPP), Peoples
Redemption Party (PRP), and the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) (Simbine, 2013:2).Taking the
argument further and offering explanation to the events that culminated in the termination of the
third republic, Simbine (2013:2-3) affirmed that:
During the aborted Third republic, two political parties were registered and allowed to
operate namely, the National Republican Convention (NRC) and Social Democratic
Party (SDP). Thereafter, under the Abacha transition programme, eighteen political
associations applied for registration as political parties, out of which five were
registered, viz: The Congress for National Consensus (CNC), the Democratic Party of
Nigeria (DPN), the Grassroots Democratic Movement (GDM), the National Centre
82

Party of Nigeria (NCPN) and the United Nigeria Congress Party (UNCP). The
apparent bankruptcy and lack of distinctive ideology made former Attorney-General
and Minister of Justice, Bola Ige, to describe the parties as “five fingers of a leprous
hand”
In Nigeria, the long-drawn struggle for the return of power to an electorate came to pass when
the Fourth Republic came into existence in 1999 (Abutudu, 2013:3). Political parties in the
current dispensation euphemistically called the Fourth Republic essentially have had the same
party structure as in the past, in which there is a National Working Committee (NWC), the
zones, the states, local governments and the wards levels of operation (Momoh, 2013:12). Two
key points summarises the complicated existence and relations within and between political
parties in the Fourth Republic. First is the proliferation of political parties in a manner that
dwarfed those of previous republics. Second is the internal contradiction that has promoted
factionalization which in itself tends to promote the creation of new parties by aggrieved or
ambitious members (Momoh, 2013:12).
Commenting on the character of the political parties of the fourth republic Abutudu (2013:5)
opined that:
In general, the political parties that emerged in the fourth republic were hardly
anchored on the forces that spearheaded the struggle against military rule. In fact, in
most cases, the individuals who formed and dominated these parties constituted an
integral part of the authoritarian political establishment, and participated in the so-
called democratic transition programmes with little or no regard for any prior
liberalization of political space as a prelude to electoral contest. They were always part
of any transition programme that the military chose, with little or no inclination to
question its motives, logic or form. The isolation of the civil society from the actual
process of party formation largely promoted a transition to a civil regime with military,
authoritarian mind-set.
Nigeria’s political parties emerged in the “historical-situation” or trajectory of disenchantment

with military rule and militarism. However, the formation of the parties was so sudden and
hurried. Similarly, Ware’s typology of “weak penetration” by existing political parties is apt, but
contrary to his claim that weak penetration will give ground to new political parties to win more
voters or members, the evidence in Nigeria shows that new political parties are equally weak and
have no convincing message to woo the electorate (Momoh,2013:8). All the political parties,
including the party in government at the centre, are weak. All the political parties need to be
organised on the principle of all inclusiveness, rather than exclusion (NAILS, 2005:249).
Agbaje, Akande and Ojo (2007: 82) were expansive and extensive in advancing events that
culminated in Fourth Republic. Vivid and critical as their argument is, they offered three reasons
for the event not mincing words in their declarations arguing that: There are three factors that
83

need to be stressed in the struggle against authoritarian rule from the mid 1980s, and which have
major implications for the nature of political parties and electoral processes that emerged in the
Fourth Republic. First, the ideas and the forces that defined that struggle were not the ideas and
forces that actually shaped the character of the transition and the Fourth Republic that emerged
from it. Thus, those who shaped the rules of the Fourth Republic and who took over the reins of
the state were not those who fought for democratic rule. Rather, those who shaped the rules, and
inherited state powers in the Fourth Republic were in essence, always closely associated with, or
aligned with military rule. Often, they were political products of military rule.
Second and closely associated with the above is the fact of regimentation of the political
transition process. The military was quite sensitive to the pressure from civil society to
democratize, but it kept a close tab on the elaboration of the rules that governed the transition
process as well as the constitutional framework of the Fourth Republic. Nowhere was this more
pronounced than on the process of political party formation. Since 1979, military rulers in
Nigeria had sought to control the party formation process by insisting on having to give formal
recognition for political parties before they could operate as such. The rationale for this approach
has been to prevent the emergence of political parties with ethnic, regional or religious
colouration. These were in fact the bane of the political parties under the First Republic
(Bogaards, 2010: 730). Parties thus, failed in their responsibility of contributing to the
consolidation of democracy in Nigeria’s First republic (Simbine, 2013:3).
In the third place, there is the prolonged political turmoil which arose from the annulment of the
presidential elections of 1993 by the regime of General Ibrahim Babangida. The protests over
this annulment forced General Babangida from Office in the same year, and brought in General
Sani Abacha after barely six months of the interim contraption put in place by Babangida when
he left office. The call for the validation of the 1993 elections won by Chief M.K.O. Abiola
dogged Abacha for the five years he was in office although he did all he could to transcend that
paradigm by coming up with his own transition programme and its full complement of five
political parties. While these efforts of Abacha terminated with his demise in 1998, it has been
argued that the origins of political parties in the Fourth Republic can be situated in the agitation
for the validation of the June 12 (1993) presidential elections.
The controversial and sudden death of General Sanni Abacha (the then head of state) signals the
commencement of the fourth republic. Upon his sudden death, General Abdulsalami Abubakar,
as it was alleged, who was to have been retired by General Abacha, along with other senior
military officers on June 8, 1998 (Iroanusi, 2000: 178), emerged as the new Head of State on
June 9, 1998. He was essentially preoccupied with organising another transition to civil rule
while attempting to re-enact a collaborative foreign policy with countries that had regarded
Nigeria as a pariah state (Fawole, 1999 and Adebajo, 2006: 10-16).
84

In stating the premises upon which he arrived at a conclusion for dissolving all the five political
parties, former Head of state, General Abdulsalami Abubakar stated that, ‘in particular,
democratization was marred by manoeuvring and manipulation of political institutions,
structures and actors. In the end, we have only succeeded in creating a defective foundation on
which a solid democratic structure can neither be constructed nor sustained (Gen. Abubakar,
1998)’. Thus, he doubted that the parties could be the strong pillars and instruments through
which democracy can be cultivated and entrenched, maintaining that these qualities were
certainly lacking in the Nigerian political space (Simbine, 2013:3-4). Abdulsalami’s transition
programme essentially threw up three major political parties: Alliance for Democracy (AD), All
Peoples Party (APP) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) (Momoh2013:11).
In the march towards the Fourth republic, the Independent National Electoral Commission
(INEC) initially granted provisional registration to nine (9) political parties in 1998 (Simbine,
2013:4). The 1999 elections ushered in the Fourth Republic. Three political parties contested the
elections. These were the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the All Peoples Party (APP) and the
Alliance for Democracy (AD). The political parties that had sought to engage the emerging
democratic order were 24 (Abdu, 2002: 94). However, only three were registered by the
Independent National Electoral Commission to assume the status of political parties. This was
with the condition that after the local government elections of that year, those that had 10% votes
and above in at least 24 states of the Federation would qualify to contest the subsequent State
and Federal elections (Simbine, 2013:4).
This was after supposedly surmounting the constitutional huddles of showing that they were not
sectional, ethnic, or religious party and that their membership and support bases were sufficiently
reflective of the diversity of the country. The empirical test of this national spread requirement
was the nationwide local council elections conducted in 1998. Actually, the AD did not exactly
pass the test “but was nevertheless registered. The government felt this was the only way that the
South West which had sustained the pro-democracy agitation since 1993, would participate in
the transition programme, thereby lending it credibility” (Agbaje, et al 2007: 84)
A major feature of the Fourth Republic is the proliferation of political parties, that primarily do
not seek to contest elections, but which are in more ways limited and self serving in roles and
interests. Though the number of political parties was 30 in 2002, 33 in early 2006 and 50 in
2007, only 16 fielded candidates in the 2003 General Elections while only 26 contested the 2007
General Elections. Even the parties that contested the elections were merely “temporal machines
for electoral contests” (TMG, 2003:18).
Thus the major parties, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alliance for Democracy (AD), Action
Congress of Nigeria (ACN), and All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) have been plagued by deep
internal crises, disorder, recurring tensions and turmoil manifested in factional fighting,
expulsions and counter-expulsions, multiple executives and dual offices. There is a high level of
85

money politics, political vagrancy, indiscipline and in-cohesion (Omotola 2009:612). Some
months into the Fourth republic, with Obasanjo as President, politicians began to clamour for the
registration of more parties. The federal government initially refused to register more political
parties, a development that forced the unregistered associations to seek redress in court (Simbine,
2013:4).
With Court judgment in their favour, it appeared that a floodgate was opened for parties to seek
and get registered. Thus, while about 30 political parties contested during the 2003 elections, the
number grew to 63 as the 2011 elections drew near. As of April 2013, only 25 political parties
are recognized by the election management body (Simbine, 2013:4). With the registration of the
new political parties; All Progressives’ Congress (APC) which is a product of a Merger from the
three main opposition parties: Action Congress of Nigeria, All Nigerian people’s party, Congress
for progressive Change and factions of two other parties) People’s Democratic Movement
(PDM), Independent Democrat (ID) the number of the political parties still stand at 25.
What became the three dominant parties in 1998 viz Alliance for Democracy (AD), Peoples
Democratic party (PDP) and All Peoples Party (APP) later (ANPP) had huge military presence
both in their formation and membership, particularly the latter two parties. As such, from the
outset the behaviour of the political parties was heavily influenced by a culture of militarism
while some of the parties where preponderantly constituted by militicians. In addition, they
lacked ideological rooting. However, the Fourth Republic has been characterised by numerous
internal crises, godfather politics and factionalisation within political parties (Momoh, 2013:13).
At the 1999 Presidential election, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo of PDP had contested against a
coalition of two other parties (APP and AD) which had brought forward Chief Olu Falae as
presidential candidate (Momoh, 2013:13). The election was however not free and fair while
traces of ethnic politics still manifested in the creation of political parties as AD had its main
followership in the south west. But while the 1999 elections were not free nor fair, the 2003
General Elections were characterised by fraud, miscounting, rigging, and malfeasance. In
addition, the election was not issue-oriented, the political parties lacked well-thought out
programmes and manifestos, the executive lord over the other two arms through actual disrespect
of ruling or threat of impeachment and blackmail, (Momoh, 2006: 71-73).
The 2007 General elections could best be described as electoral Tsunami or what have been
euphemistically referred to as Direct Capture (DC), within the overall strategic framework of
Primitive Accumulation of Votes (PAV). In early stages of PAV political parties rigged elections
and although the state was generally not neutral, its institutions were used (instrumentalised) for
the purpose of achieving PAV “In other words, state institutions were first captured by private
interests, particularly political parties, and then deployed for PAV” (Ibeanu, 2009: 15).
86

Political parties in Nigeria are not keen about deepening democracy; rather they are more
preoccupied with the crude capture of power. They have abandoned their traditional role of
membership recruitment and mobilisation, and political education (Momoh, 2013:27). With the
emergence of godfathers, owners and joiners, political nomads and the use of uncivil means to
win elections, Nigerian political parties have continued to contribute to de-democratisation. The
central challenge of party system dwells on party processes, inter-party relationship, violence,
and other ecological factors (Momoh, 2013:27).
In contra- distinction, Jinadu (2013:6) rising to the defence of political parties in Nigeria
especially in the fourth republic contend that:
This is not to say that all has been bad or that all has not been well since May 1999. It
is only to point to creeping and indeed deepening contradictions, which require urgent
policy action. The action is urgent, if the considerable and obvious progress the country
has made towards deepening democratic transition since 1999 in the following areas is
not to turn into a fleeting mirage: (i) continuing commitment to federalism; (ii) the
political succession, in line with constitutional fixed term limits and/or through
democratic elections, at the federal and state level, even if still problematic and
controversial in several respects; (iii) the ebb and flow in the watchdog role of the
legislature and judiciary especially at the federal level, under the separation of powers;
(iv) the apparent subordination of the military to civilian control; (v) the vibrancy of the
civil society as democratic sentinel; and (vi) the limited, though not inconsequential,
success of democracy-promoting institutions, such as the independent national electoral
commission, the national human rights commission and the economic and financial
crimes commission
DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION AND POLITICAL PARTIES: CONCEPTUAL

CLARIFICATION
Democratic Consolidation
Scholars have used different definitions of democratic consolidation. These definitions are based
on two conceptions of democracy. One is a “minimalist conception,” emphasizing procedural or
formal democracy. The other is a “maximalist conception,” focusing on the outcomes of politics,
such as institutionalization of political institutions, social justice, and economic equality (Lee,
2007: 103). Schmitter defines the minimalist conception of a consolidated democratic regime as
“the process of transforming the accidental arrangements, prudential norms, and contingent
solutions that have emerged during the transition into relations of cooperation and competition
that are reliably known, regularly practiced, and voluntarily accepted by those persons or
collectives that participate in democratic governance (Schmitter, 1992: 424).”
87

In his own contribution Linz (1978: 158) asserts that: a consolidated democracy is one in which
“none of the major political actors, parties, or organized interests, forces, or institutions consider
(s) that there is any alternative to the democratic process to gain power and that no political
institutions or groups has a claim to veto the action of democratically elected decision makers.
To put it simply democracy must be seen as ‘the only game in town.’ Democratic consolidation
is about regime maintenance and about regarding the key political institutions as the only
legitimate framework for political contestation and adherence to the democratic rules of the
game (Ogundiya, 2009).
More explicitly, Gunther, Diamandurous, and Puhle (1995) contend that the democratization
process has three phases: the fall of the authoritarian regime, consolidation, and enduring
democracy. Democratic consolidation should therefore connote a consistent and sustained
practice of democratic princip(Yagboyaju, 2013: 101). The building of a consolidated democracy
involves in part an affirmation and strengthening of certain institutions, such as the electoral
system, revitalized or newly created parties, judicial independence and respect for human rights,
which have been created or recreated during the course of the transition (Valenzuela, 1990:4).
Diamond (1995:171) was poignant in his analysis. He contends that: democratic consolidation
means the quality, depth, and authenticity of democracy in its various dimensions has been
improved: “political competition becomes fairer, freer, more vigorous and executive;
participation and representation broader, more autonomous, and inclusive; civil liberties more
comprehensively and rigorously protected; accountability more systematic and
transparent.”Several of the newly emerging democratic regimes are far from consolidated. They
are merely surviving without consolidating. In particular, in the less developed regions of the
world, these fragile democratic regimes have experienced significant uncertainty over the rules
of the game, due to their terrible economic conditions and other social problems. Although many
Third-World countries (which Nigeria belongs) have experienced transitions to procedural
democracy, such as free elections with few barriers to mass participation and meaningful party
competition, this democratic change definitely does not guarantee democratic stability (Lee,
2007: 103). Democracy can be said to be consolidated when it can avoid democratic breakdown
and erosion by ‘eliminating, neutralizing, or converting disloyal players’ (Schedler, 1998), and
moving a step further towards completing and deepening democracy, measured by high ‘
expectations of regime continuity’(Schedler, 1998).
For Diamond (1996:7).
Democratic consolidation is obstructed by or destroyed causally by the effects of

institutional shallowness and decay. If they are to become consolidated, therefore,
electoral democracies must become deeper and more liberal. This will require greater
executive (and military) accountability to both the law and the scrutiny of other
branches of government, as well as the public, the reduction of barriers to political
88

participation and mobilization by marginalized groups; and more effective protection

for the political and civil right of all citizens
With consolidation,democracy becomes regularized and deeply internalized in social institutional

and even psychological life as well as in political calculations for achieving goals (Babatope,
2012: 14). Democratic consolidation “implies the internationalization of democratic culture and
the institutionalization of democratic “best practices” by a polity that has successfully embarked
on a democratic transition” (Asiwaju 2000).
Political Parties
A political party is much more than an organization for seeking and controlling political power.
More critically, it is an organization for expressing and harmonizing interests, and that
intermediates between the citizens and political society, government and state (Ikelegbe, 2013:7).
There are numerous types of political parties such as elite-based parties, mass-based parties,
ethnic-based parties, electoralist parties and movement parties (Gunther and Diamond, 2003).
Political parties have been defined in different ways. Nnoli (2003) defines a political party as a
group of people who share a common conception of how and why state power should be
organized and used. Political parties have also been conceived as an instrument for contesting
elections for the purpose of selecting candidates and parties to exercise political power (Yaqub
2002:122). A political party is simply a body of organised individuals whose ultimate aim and
goal is to contest for governmental power through the instrumentalities of elections. While it
should not be mistaken that the mere existence of political parties presupposes that a society is
democratic or otherwise, however, competitive and periodic elections have come to at least
define the character of liberal democracy (Momoh, 2013:).
When we consider popular attitudes on political parties around the world, many of them reflect
strongly negative views held by the general public. Popular views on parties range from
identifying parties as: power-hungry; corrupt; either excessively partisan or, on the other
extreme, lacking in ideology; male-dominated; elite-dominated; lacking internal democracy;
lacking meaningful connection to the grassroots; responsible for gridlock and obstructing the
smooth functioning of government; and in some cases violent and dangerous (Carothers, 2006
cited in Deme, 2013:2).
A number of these views have not only been held by the general public but also such widely
respected leaders as George Washington, who once said, “[political parties]…are likely in the
course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and
unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves
the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust
dominion” (Deme, 2013:2). Political parties, despite all these drawbacks, however, fulfill a
number of vital functions that help a multi-party democratic system function. Parties serve
89

essential functions including aggregating citizen interests, forming governments, developing and
promoting policy positions and programmes, and grooming and selecting political leadership
(Carothers, 2006).
political parties perform other functions that include mediating between citizens and state
institutions; recruiting and preparing individuals for political leadership; organizing election
campaigns; aggregating societal interests, and providing a participatory, responsive relationship
with the people; political recruitment and training; education, socialization, breeding consensus,
providing alternative world views and political communication among others (Pogoson, 2013:4).
POLITICAL PARTIES AND DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION: THE NEXUS
Political parties are seen as inevitable in establishing the necessary link(s) between the state, civil
society and democratic consolidation. They are the gatekeepers and the measuring political
barometer for indicating the degree and effectiveness of the practice of democracy. Being the
heart of democracy, they make and/or mar a stable political system (Kura, 2011:270). Some of
the functions/role of political parties include: governance, representation, policy making and
execution, interest aggregation and articulation, peaceful change of government, making
government effective and responsive (opposition parties function also as pressure group),
accountability, social and integration functions. In sum, wherever a political party exists, it tends
to perform common functions at different stages of economic, social, political and judicial
development (Kura, 2011:270).
In Nigeria’s contemporary politics however, parties that should promote democracy are
themselves the most undemocratic entities (Simbine, 2013: 8). “The political parties of the
Fourth Republic were bred to be agents of democratic erosion and collapse, rather than strong
ramparts for the construction and consolidation of democracy.” (Agbaje, 2010:69). Concerns
persist over the role of Nigerian political parties in democratic consolidation. The Uwais Committee
(Election Reform Committee) cited in Ibeanu, 2013:5) had this to say about political parties:
One of the most crucial and yet least developed democratic institutions in the country is
the political party system. There are currently 50(which rose to over 63 but now scaled
down to 25 in 2013) registered political parties in the country, most of which are an
assemblage of people who share the same level of determination to use the party
platform to get to power. As such, it is usually difficult to identify any party
programmes or ideologies. The structure of the political parties is such that internal
democracy is virtually absent. The political parties are weak and unable to effectively
carry out political mobilization, political education and discipline.
Diamond, Kirk-Greene, and Oyediran, (1997) stresses that: Political parties remain important if
not essential instruments for representing political constituencies and interests, aggregating
90

demands and preferences, recruiting and socializing new candidates for office, organizing the
electoral competition for power, crafting policy alternatives, setting the policy-making agenda,
forming effective governments, and integrating groups and individuals into the democratic
process. The authoritarian character of state actors, the clobbered nature of the political parties,
the beggar-thy-neighbour mentality of elected party executives, in the face of the rapacious and
abrasive role of leaders of party, have made them not to be ineffective and have equally led to
internal contradictions within political parties (Momoh, 2010).
In this milieu, political parties hold, perhaps, the highest recruitment and mobilisation potential
in Nigeria’s democracy, yet they have squandered it on the platter of opportunism and narrow-
minded and self-seeking interests. Rather than give direction to membership, political parties are
being hijacked and manipulated by a few members who bifurcate the party by differentiating
between “owners” and “joiners”. In some cases, some political parties are subcontracted to those
characterized as Candidate-members (Momoh, 2010).
In a democracy, political parties perform a number of functions, topical among which are two,
namely (i) being principal instruments for contesting elections, the election being staged to select
candidates as well as parties to exercise political power (authority) (Yaqub, 2002), and (ii) being
instruments of political education, interest aggregation, political socialization, and political
recruitment. Either in government or in opposition, political parties are expected to perform these
two crucial functions in addition to others, depending on the character of the political system in
which they operate.
In particular, opposition parties are expected to help in educating, articulating and aggregating
issues that they contend that the public is not well informed about or about which they want to
make their own positions clear. In the words of Yaqub (2002) ‘It is on the basis of competently
performing these roles that an opposing political party can stand a good chance of displacing
and, thereby, taking power from a political party currently in the saddle’. In the course of
preparing to capture state power and exercise authority in the future, the party must devote its
attention to recruiting and training people to occupy political positions in the state. They thus,
articulate alternative policies, while serving as legal opposition to the party in power.
In his own argument Jinadu (2013:2-3) affirmed that:
Competitive party and electoral politics is expected to deepen and consolidate the
democratic transition, which the country embarked upon in May 1999. The transition is
anchored on the following: (a) federalism; and (b) constitutional or limited government,
which is anchored on the following principles: (i) rule of law; (ii) separation of powers,
moderated by a system of checks and balance or diffusion of powers; (iii) presidential
and gubernatorial term limits; (iv) accountability and transparency in government, with
special powers and functions assigned to horizontal institutions of governance or
democracy-promotion institutions, such as the independent national electoral
91

commission, as a virtual fourth branch of government, to monitor and ensure it; (v)
social pluralism or social inclusion, in the form of a charter or bill of rights, such as in
the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy, specifying the duty of
the state to provide cultural, economic and social rights, and fundamental human rights
provisions, which are basically civil and political rights.
These anchors of democratic consolidation are expected to create material and psychological
conditions, and institutional processes to serve as powerful bulwarks against a reversal or
regression to the sad historical experience with the practice of competitive party and electoral
politics in the country’s First and Second Republics. In this respect the significance of political
parties for sustainable democracy and elections is that, under conditions of competitive party and
electoral politics, and the conduct of free and fair elections, whose outcome is expectedly ex ante
indeterminate (Przeworski, 1991), political parties (i) present the electorate with a choice of
candidates and programmes from which to choose, and in doing so (ii) help to decide which
party or coalition of parties should govern for a fixed number of years. The requirement of
competitiveness and the ex ante indeterminacy of the substantive outcome of elections is what
distinguishes the party in a liberal democratic political system, from the concept of the party in
an authoritarian or one-party political system (Jinadu, 2013: 3).
In a liberal democratic system, political parties should provide the medium through which the
accountability of the executive and the legislature to the electorate is exercised in the form of
periodic competitive elections under a two-party, dominant two-party or multiparty party
systems. By providing such a medium, political parties under a liberal democratic system, are
expected to help deepen democracy and development by pursuing public policy measures and
programmes to advance the public welfare, in line with their manifestos and ideologies. This is
of course in theory. The reality is and can be much different, as various critics of the party and
the theory of liberal politics from which this concept of the party derives have argued. Such
critics, in advancing their arguments, point to the vitiating effect on the choice of the electorate
of: (i) oligarchic and undemocratic tendencies, including the unwholesome effect of money, in
political party organization; and (ii) market imperfections and structural distortions in the
economic organization of the liberal democratic state, which make nonsense of the notion of
possessive individualism and the analogized competitive political market place, on both of which
the theory of competitive electoral politics is based (Jinadu, 2013: 4-5).
The periodic electoral accountability that should come with free and fair elections remains
gravely lacking in Nigeria, because of the subversion of the rules of electoral governance and its
processes by the country’s political parties. Elections in the country are typically not about
people-oriented programmes, during which political parties and their candidates for public
political office offer the electorate issues-based competing options on advancing the people’s
welfare. Nor are elections in the country typically referenda on the performance of governing
parties at federal, state and local government levels in office. The elections are “choiceless,”
92

reminding us of Herbert Marcuse’s dictum that so-called “free elections” under liberal
democracy remove neither the masters nor the slaves (Jinadu, 2013: 5-6).
The relationship between a viable political party system and democratic consolidation is evident.
Political parties are the heart of democracy and without which, democracy cannot function
(Adele 2001:35). Political parties are an essential component of democracy and central to an
understanding of how politics works. Political parties are also the crucial link between the
citizens and the government in a democracy. There can be no meaningful democracy without a
properly functioning party system (Agbaje, 1999; 192). While democracy rests on the informed
and active participation of the people, political parties are viable tools in this regard. Democracy
exists where the foremost leaders of a political system are selected by competitive elections in
which the bulk of the population has the opportunity to participate. Evidently, the condition of
the parties, in a political system, is the best possible evidence of the nature of any democratic
regime (Anifowoshe, 2004:59).
In fact, in a democracy, the personnel selected through the electoral process are expected to
embody specific norms and policy platforms which command the support of the electorate.
Elections then are “an expression of the peoples’ sovereign will” (Agbaje and Adejumobi: 2006:
26). If elections express the sovereign will, political parties provide the platform for articulating
that will and selecting the personnel who must embody it in government. A critical core of
liberal democracy is predicated on competition for political power with the governed, as free
agents, exercising their free and unfettered choice among competing platforms which are
provided under different political parties. Political parties seek to capture political power but
they do this by seeking popular support through elections. By contesting and winning elections,
political parties become the effective agents for choosing those who exercise governmental
power. In effect, political parties act as channel of expression between government and the
governed, set and implement agenda for the society while acting as agents of socialization and
elite recruitment (Hague and Harrop: 1987: 139-141).
The claim to govern by a political party is anchored on its ability to get the support of a majority
of voters in free and fair elections. However, there are differing perspectives as to how political
parties align themselves with the voters. While some assume that this process is largely driven by
the voters themselves, with the ‘rational’ political party simply aligning itself with the
preferences of majority of the voters (Downs, 1957), others consider the political party as the
creator of the vision behind which it mobilizes the voters. The first perspective advocates that
political parties are pragmatic entities whose overriding need for power compels them to adopt
electoral platforms that mirror the positions of most voters. For Alan Ware, this is the populist
conception of democracy.
Elections under such a democracy express a relationship between the voter and the elected
official with the former controlling the latter (Ware, 1979: 6). On the other hand, the conception
93

of parties as essentially instruments through which like-minded people organizes to enthrone

their interests as the basis of government action. Duverger (1959), view the party as the architect
of the platform, the vision, behind which it then mobilizes the voters. Political parties under this
liberal variant of democracy influence voters’ choice “through the alternative views of political
reality they present to the electorate. In effect, they interpret the political universe for the
electorate and invite them to chose among such competing interpretations” (Ware, 1979:32-
3).Ultimately, in contemporary democratic systems political parties govern and they must do so
by acquiring the mandate of the people in periodic elections. Through this, the electorate can
expect government to be responsive, responsible and accountable. There is also recognition that
for the popular will to be truly manifested in governance, the electoral process must be shown in
all ramifications to be free and fair. The failure to meet these basic conditions robs elections of
the quality of anchoring government policies, programmes and actions on the will of the people
(Abutudu, 2013:3).
CHALLENGES OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION

OF NIGERIA’S FOURTH REPUBLIC
Political parties are vital organizations in a democracy, and democracy is stronger when citizens
become active members of political parties. Certain characteristics of political parties such as
high level of institutionalization, a localized level of candidate nomination, high level of women
working at internal party offices and the presence of formal rules designed to increase the
number of women in elected offices are vital for the deepening and sustenance of democracy
(Pogoson, 2013: 21-22). Nigeria’s democratic culture is characterized by factors such as:
assassinations, lawlessness, illegalities, rigging, oppression, manipulation, marginalization and
violence. Other factors include: male dominated party politics, labeling, money politics, and
numerous social, cultural and religious issues.
Party discipline, inter-party relations, internal party democracy and processes, violence, political
ecology, party ownership, membership defection and lack of party political education are
challenges confronting democratic consolidation in Nigeria’s fourth republic (Abutudu,
2013:11). Consequently, parties have found it extremely difficult to emphasize politics of issues.
Lately, the situation has remained unchanged as parties rarely discuss topical matters that closely
match those of the people (Simbine, 2013:16).
Jinadu (2013:14-15) in his observation contend that; Competitive party and electoral politics
under the military-brokered democratic transitions were intended to (a) facilitate internal
democracy within the political parties, through requirements like party conventions and party
nomination primaries, and the establishment of a party bureaucracy, involving a distinction
between career politicians and party technocrats; (b) engender a new democratic political culture
through encouraging and nurturing the emergence of a “new-breed” of politicians, with a more
positive and system-supporting orientation to politics; (c) emphasize issue-based or ideological
differentiae, to distinguish one party from the other, and to de-emphasize the personalization of
94

party politics; and (d) bring about accountability and transparency in the sourcing and spending
of party financing. In spite of that party politics in Nigeria’s fourth republic has been fraught
with a lot of challenges. It is proper to situate these challenges in their appropriate perspective.
They are:
Lack of Institutionalization and Personalization of Political Parties

Parties in Nigeria have not been able to attain the expected degree of institutionalization
especially in the areas of internal cohesion and discipline. This deficiency has also contributed to
the decline of their conflict management capacities at both intra and inter-party relations levels.
The level of crisis at both levels of party relations is worrisome. It is such that none of the parties
have been able to hold together without severe conflict that most times threaten their very hearts
(Simbine, 2013:18). Party and party system institutionalization is measured by the internal and
external activities of parties. Internal refers to all those factors that are only internal to party
organization, such as internal democracy, complexities, finance, adaptability, etc, and external
refers to the relationship of parties with their external environment (Kura, 2011:270).
The internal characteristics and power configurations of the political parties have manifested in
huge organizational weaknesses and internal conflicts. The parties have particularly been
plagued by suspensions and expulsions of party members, cross carpeting particularly prior to
elections and deep divisions and factions that have manifested sometimes in violent clashes
(Ikelegbe, 2013: 18). Intra-party violent conflicts have been particularly heightened during
election periods because of the imposition of favoured and dubious consensus candidates, and
the swapping of nominated candidates by party chieftains. The absence of equalitarian platforms
and the subversion of the will of ordinary party members and delegates in party primaries, have
grieved several party leaders and members and underlined numerous defections and cross-
carpeting (Ikelegbe, 2013: 18-19). More empirically, whether parties in a particular polity are
able to effectively perform these functions is a matter of the degree of party and party system
institutionalization (Kura, 2008).
Smaller parties often exist alongside their founders, funders or some public figure; hence they
are built around personalities. For instance, the personality of Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu is
central to the formation and sustenance of All Peoples Grand Alliance (APGA), Bola Ahmed
Tinubu to Action Congress (AC), as well as its successor Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN),
Orji Uzor Kalu to Progressive Peoples Party (PPA), and Muhammadu Buhari to Congress for
Progressive Change (CPC). Even the PDP for a long time was woven around the personality of
Obasanjo who determined and controlled a lot of activities in the party (Manning, 2005). With
Tinubu and Buhari as the characters on board the All Progressives Congress (APC) (One of the
newly registered political parties), it is feared that there will be lack of internal democracy and
cohesion as these leaders will prefer to dictate the tune, compelling other members to dance
along or get out of the Union (Onabanjo, 2013:23)
95

The parties are led, manned and peopled by persons to whom politics is a job, a means of
livelihood, accumulation and a means to further their business interests (Jibrin 2006). In fact the
party elite are “greedy, opportunistic, self serving and deceitful” and are actually to some extent,
“coalitions of various factions of regional and economic rent seekers” (Ojo 2008:6). The
struggle for or power tussle has been defined in terms of “owners” of the party, “moneybags”,
“godfathers” and leaders of the party”. Quite often all of these attributes are contained in a single
politician, but where they are not, power tussle ensues, and the party leaders are either made
bystanders or aligned to one or the other tendency that best serves their interest. The outcome is
often factionalisation or fragmentation of the party, leading to splinter groups or defections
or…political nomadism (Momoh, 2013:9).
Another problem associated with lack of institutionalization is the fact that a few prominent,
powerful and influential individuals have completely hijacked the party machinery. While
Obasanjo has total control of the PDP, it is well known that Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu
determines what happens in the ACN. Similarly, Rtd General Buhari is alfa and omega in
Congress for Positive Change (CPC), and the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) is controlled by
the duo of Kano State Governor Shekarau and Ali Modu Sherrif (Simbine, 2013:18). In Allied
Congress Party of Nigeria (ACPN), the only authority that mattered was Oloye Olusola Saraki
(now late), while Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu (also now late) and Governor Peter Obi of Anambra
state control the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) (Simbine, 2013:18). The dominant
figures in APC are Buhari and Tinubu. There is something common to the two of them; they are
both dictators and ideologically they two poles apart.
Un-institutionalized parties will always find it difficult to develop deep roots in the society in
which they exist and operate. This factor has led to a low rate of party identification among
voters, which also leads to high electoral volatility (Simbine, 2013:18). When parties generally
lack strong institutionalization, they showcase a low level of organization and become even more
available to be hijacked by a few party leaders who dictate to the majority. According to
Omotola (2009: 612), it is incontrovertible that the mere adoption of party pluralism will not
automatically advance the cause of democracy without the institutionalization of concrete
parameters to promote and sustain strong political culture and due process in theory and practice.
The frequent changes being experienced in the leadership of the PDP is a pointer to serious and
unmanageable disagreements and crisis of leadership and legitimacy and a fault line in
institutionalization. For example, between May 1999 and 2012, the PDP changed its national
chairman eight (8) times! It has been led by Solomon Lar, Barnabas Germade, Audu Ogbe,
Ahmadu Ali, Vincent Ogbulafor, Okwesilieze Nwodo, Haliru Muhammed Bello as acting
national Chairman, and presently by Bamanga Mahmud Tukur (See Emmanuel Oladesu and
Augustine Avwode in The Nation, April 30, 2013: 45). An obvious fact is that none of these
changes was succession orderly, open, free, independent and reflective of the actual wishes of
the majority of the party faithful. Rather, each (with the exception probably of the pioneer
96

Chair), was predicated upon the endorsement, whims and caprices of a given section of the party
elite led oftentimes by the (incumbent) President (Adejumobi, 2002: 36-53).
Godfatherism
Godfatherism has become a dominant feature of the party system in Nigeria today. Ayoade
states that godfather is “… a benign political accretion of the position of either political notables
or dreaded political rascals who are recalcitrant to the deterrence of the legal regime” (2008: 85).
Godfatherism has been described as “an ideology which is constructed on the belief that certain
individuals possess considerable means to unilaterally determine who gets party ticket to run for
an election and who wins in an electoral contest” (Ogundiya, 2009: 286).To Ayoade (2006),
Godfatherism is not philanthropy, it is often marked by devious and undemocratic acts such as
violence, bribery and corruption all for the sake of perpetuating the wishes of the Godfather.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the Godfather and the Godson: the Godfather “invests”
his resources in the Godson and the Godson must, or at least should, on getting into office
reciprocate by reimbursing his Godfather in kind and keeping absolute loyalty to the Godfather
in all respects, including decision making whilst in public office. The key goal of all Godfathers
is rule by proxy or rule through protégés (Ojo and Lawal, 2013: 187).
Godfather politics typically ensures that results are declared even when there is no evidence that
voting actually took place. It typically plays electoral politics with little or no respect for the
established rules of conduct governing the process, and does not display any sense of moral
restraint in its appreciation of what constitutes appropriate behavior in a democratic political
order. It is not surprising therefore that elections results, whether at the intra-party level or at the
level of general elections are always disputed by those who are declared losers. In fact, all three
presidential elections since 1999 have been the subject of judicial intervention (Abutudu,
2013:10-11).
Ayoade (2006) makes a distinction of the variant of Godfathers. He identifies two types of
Godfathers, those who wield influence within the party and those who wield influence in their
constituencies. The key attribute of both types of Godfathers is that they are sought after because
their position can “sway political support” in nominating candidates or winning votes, during
elections. Hence Ayoade differentiates between good and bad Godfathers, the former is subject
to party discipline and rules of the game, and merely uses his/her reputation and good will to
sway votes and support, whilst the latter violates all known rules to secure votes or political
office for their candidate(s). The core claim of Ayoade is that many of the current political
parties are unable to curtail, contain and punish “aberrant behaviour” of members, including
godfathers and all this have had negative impact on party system.
The hijack of political parties by Godfathers has virtually choked off the party system as channel
for the aggregation of local or constituency interests. The preferences expressed by the party
typically turn out to be the personal interests of the Godfather. The sustainability of the control
97

of the political niche by the Godfather cannot be left to the uncertainty of being subjected to the
preferences of the voters in a free and fair election. This desperation has typically led to the
explicit, crude criminalization of the electoral process (Abutudu, 2013:12). Therefore, because
Godfathers have significant influence on the internal workings of political parties, they are
inadvertently or deliberately involved in the stability or otherwise of these parties. In other
words, because they are the modulators and epicentre of political in-fighting and struggle for
power and perquisites of office, they are one causative factor in understanding political
Nomadism (Momoh, 2013:17).
Political Nomadism represents the defection(s) or arbitrary movement of politicians from one
political party to another, or their formation of completely new party, after dumping their
original party of membership. What makes the defection nomadic? This is because first they turn
political parties into grazing grounds and second because the rate of defections is so high,
arbitrary and sometimes in explicable. These defections are often on grounds of lack of internal
democracy in the party, Godfatherism, highhandedness and usurpation of power and abuse of
position (Momoh, 2013:22).
The phenomenon of political niche creation is not only choking and blocking the political parties
as platforms of representation. It is also turning national institutions located within the
geographical spaces of particular political niches as zones of Godfather influence and control
(Abutudu, 2013:14). The influence and power of Godfathers have continued to shape and
reshape the nature of internal democracy within political parties and this continues to play a
significant role in understanding the crises in political parties in Nigeria (Momoh, 2013:16).
Absence of Internal Democracy within the Political Parties

Most political parties do not practice internal democracy because their leaders hardly emerged
democratically hence the rising culture of political violence and assassinations especially in some
sections of the country. Internal (party) democracy could be defined as a democratic process
which involves accountability and transparency in all party affairs more especially in selecting
party leaders, flag bearer, executives and other party officials in a political party (ukaeje,
2011:19). Internal democracy thus connotes political parties giving full expression and unfettered
access to their members to participate in the decision making process. It also means running
affairs transparently, in accordance with agreed rules, and in a manner that is fair and just.
Internal party democracy in political parties also refer to the levels and methods of including
party members in the decision making and deliberation within party structure (Kari and Uchenna,
2011:35-36).
Among the most elementary yet significant aspects of political development in a democracy are
the convention of party congresses and the conduct of transparent and successful party primaries
to elect leaders and candidates (i.e. flag-bearers) respectively. Since 1999, the trend has been that
party primaries among virtually all political parties in Nigeria are usually pre-determined with
98

party “God-fathers” having the final say in the selection of both party leaders and candidates
(Simbine, 2013:15). There is lack of internal democracy and poor governance systems in the
political parties as indicated by non inclusive systems of participation and decision making, lack
of opportunities for broad input, absence of well defined structures, rules and processes, denial of
individual and group rights, and weak mechanisms for redressing grievances (Ikelegbe, 2013:3).
Obviously, political Godfathers are always unwilling to allow internal party democracy, a
circumstance that leads to frequent conflicts and constrains the development of parties as popular
organizations. Expectedly, this leads to internal party crisis and frequent decamping of aggrieved
politicians to other political parties where their aspirations can be accommodated (Simbine,
2013:15-16). Party leaderships have lacked popular bases and legitimacy and have tended to act
with impunity, recklessness and insensitivity. The existence and dominance of party patrons and
political machines have become the covert and clandestine platform for warfare like struggles to
access and retain political power (Ikelegbe, 2013:3).
The activities of political parties in Nigeria is rather a paradox because the principles expected of
a political party, like internal coherence and discipline are all lacking in all. Indeed, these
principles eluded political parties in Nigeria instead what is obtainable is the total opposite of
what should be obtained; the absence of internal party democracy which today stands as one
major stumbling blocks to nurturing a functional and participatory democracy in Nigeria
(Ukaeje, 2011:26). The flagrant abuse of internal party democracy has been identified as the
primogeniture of party wrangling or crisis either because of the wrangling it brings in the party
affairs or the crisis it causes. Much of the internal party conflicts witnessed among political
parties in Nigeria are either directly or indirectly linked to the problem of intraparty democracy,
a development which has bedeviled the development of political parties and therefore a major
impediment to the development of sustainable democratic governance (and consolidation) in our
country (Ukaeje, 2011:23).
Nigerian parties have neither risen above ethnic considerations nor exhibited internal democracy
in their structure, organization and practice of politics. Rather, they have not only been ridden
with internal crises but also turned out to be vehicles of corruption in material and ethical terms
in the country, turning politics into a vocation not designed for the public interest but for
primitive accumulation and the collection of rents (Jinadu, 2013:17). Unlike what existed in the
First and Second republics, virtually all the political parties since the Fourth republic commenced
lack internal democracy, absence of which,… breeds monetization of politics and the tendency
of political vagrancy, institutionalized bitterness and violence in the attempt to gain and retain
political power at all cost (Simbine, 2007: 207-232).
Incessant Party / Political Violence

Perhaps the most damning record of political parties on clean politics is the persistence of
violence in our political system (Ibeanu, 2013:13). Apart from elections conducted by the
colonial government and the military, others particularly the 1964, 1983, 2003 and 2007
99

elections were plagued by violence and crises. Elections in Nigeria since 2003 have been
plagued with irregularities and violence (Nweke 2005:386). Prior to the 2007 elections, the spate
of assassinations that hit politicians was simply unprecedented, including a Minister of Justice
and a National Vice Chairman of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (Ibeanu, 2013:13).
The 2007 elections was particularly plagued by incidents of violence that included theft and
snatching of election materials, killings, arson, abductions, assault, intimidation, destruction of
properties and election materials, rioting, looting, violent clashes and protests, mayhem and
chaos. More specifically incidents of electoral violence have included assault on electoral
officials and voters, hijack and seizure of election materials, attacks on security officials and
violent clashes between rival thugs and sympathizers of political parties (Nweke 2005:386).
The major parties in Nigeria are to varying degrees involved in the formation, mobilization and
deployment of armed groups during party registrations, primaries and general elections. Some
parties have loyal armed groups that are fairly known in some States and communities, that are
deployed to protect their interests (Ikelegbe, 2013:20). During the Fourth Republic the breeding
and use of thugs has assumed a new dimension. In the contemporary scenario, it has assumed a
multiple-layered dimension because both the opposition and the ruling parties now breed thugs.
Also, within the parties, leading figures and aspirants now maintain hordes of people mostly
male who perform sundry acts such as errands, guards and harassment of political opponents
(Abdul-Jelil, 2009: 11). Individual thugs, cult groups and armed gangs hire out their services to
party leaders, who arm and pay them for specific violent roles during primaries and elections.
One of the violent methods engaged by these chieftains is assassinations. Politically motivated
assassinations have been a major feature of the struggles for power and resources within and
between political parties. Other forms of violence are violent attacks on the properties, campaign
and party offices and supporters of opponents (Ikelegbe, 2013:20).
Taking the argument further in a more concise and vivid fashion, Ikelegbe (2013: 23-24)
maintained that:
Party linked electoral violence can occur under four scenarios. The first is related to
the nature of campaigns such as campaigns of calumny against opponents; ethnic,
religious and regional rancor, mudslinging, bitterness and incitements that can provoke
violence. The second is engagement in acts that provoke violence during elections such
as imposition of candidates, annulment of party primaries, refusal to count ballot
papers from opposition strongholds, changing of results, declaration of false results
and delays and manipulation of results. The third is when parties procure, fund,
support, facilitate and deploy organized violence by armed agents, bands and thugs to
subvert the electoral process. The fourth occurs when parties facilitate, support, arm
and deploy groups, thugs and youth to resist, thwart and stop the subversion of the
electoral process
100

Party politics is always being characterized by assassination, arson, intra and inter-party clashes
and monumental political violence (Babatope, 2012:12). Rather than being a platform for
reconciling and mediating conflicts and preventing violent eruptions through democratic
procedures, the political parties in Nigeria have become a major institutional formation for the
brewing and accentuation of conflicts. Party involvements in violence and violent conflicts have
inflamed existing identity and communal conflicts over land, chieftaincy and community
leadership. The involvement of party chieftains in the arming and funding of armed groups have
led to the proliferation of arms, armed groups, cultists and militias (Ikelegbe, 2013:31). Fraud
and violence have traditionally been used by political parties to gain electoral victories in
Nigeria. Electoral violence and even fraud have been committed by most parties and both ruling
and opposition parties at federal and state levels. What is however noteworthy is that electoral
violence depends on party capacity, resources and access to state powers which means that ruling
parties at different governmental levels are the major culprits (Ikelegbe, 2013:24). A typical
Nigerian political party (ies) has adorned the toga of notoriety to the extent that its defining
characteristics have been intrigues, bickering, backbiting, schisms and violence (Olaniyan
2009:51).
In fact, many political parties mobilize violent groups to guarantee security to candidates, party
officials, campaign meetings and related activities during election periods. Most post election
violence is linked to political parties in terms of mobilization, engineering and heightening.
Incidents of violent protests and arson tend to be instigated, organized and backed by associates
and supporters of opposition or losing parties, party leaders and candidates against alleged
electoral irregularities and stolen victories (Ikelegbe, 2013:24). The character of the leadership of
the parties, weak cohesion and the suffusion with divisions, factions, conflicts and defections
have constructed the parties as institutions with high propensity and proclivity to violent
conflicts (Ikelegbe 2013: 35). Right from the colonial period to the current dispensation, party
politics has been bedeviled by crises in varying proportions, and among the players (Babatope,
2012:13).
The political parties’ violence linkage has constructed a regime of public distrust, disgust, apathy
and antipathy concerning the political process and political elite. Nigerians have become
disillusioned and alienated from the political process. A culture of political violence has been
constructed. This has meant that not only is confidence being lost in the electoral process, but a
growing political cynicism may be emerging. There has been de-legitimation of governments
that acquired power through dubious elections pervaded by violence (Ikelegbe, 2013:33). Party
politics is characterized by intimidation, victimization, violence, acid attacks and political
assassination, forcing many Nigerians to withdraw from party politics (Babatope, 2012:13).
Party linked political violence has constituted a major threat to democratic consolidation and
survival. Our nascent democracy has become plagued by insecurity and fear. There have been
101

assaults on civil rights, democratic values and procedures and our collective psyche and
sensibilities (Ikelegbe, 2013:32).
Encapsulating the state of party politics and the democratic consolidation in the Nigeria’s fourth
republic Okoye (2009] clearly enunciated that:
The general view is clearly that: (i) competitive party and electoral politics in the
country falls far short of promoting democracy; (ii) there is deep mistrust within and
between the political parties, resulting in antipathy and sense of helplessness among the
generality of their members, and inducing heightened political tension in the country;
and (iii) the marginalization of women, youth and vulnerable groups (physically and
visually challenged) remains a major deficit as well as a major challenge for the
country’s party system. There is also a general sentiment that through their legendary
failure to run their internal affairs in line with their constitutions and the electoral law,
and to resolve intra-party disputes arising there from, the political parties have
progressively brought the judiciary into the political thicket.
Nigerian political parties have failed to provide leadership in consolidating federalism and
democracy in the country and in diminishing the centrifugal salience of ethno-regionalism,
reviving now and again since the democratic transition of 1979, the ghost of the politics of
brinkmanship that created the political and constitutional impasse of October 1965-January 1966
(Jinadu, 2013:17).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Since the beginning of the fourth Republic, the academics and the civil societies have paid
serious attention to the practice of democracy in Nigeria and are much more concerned about its
consolidation. It is observed in this paper that Nigeria’s democracy is shallow and has failed to
take deep roots because political parties are deficient and have been unable to play their expected
role in strengthening the foundation of democratic consolidation. Political parties in the Fourth
Republic are functionally weak and institutionally frail owing to incessant party violence, lack of
clearly articulated manifestoes, coherent and consistent programmes that reflect the overall
expectations, desires, preferences and aspirations of the masses, which in turn have become
listless, lethargic and apathetic. The party system in Nigeria is weak and vulnerable, its future
remains precarious and endangered by politicians who through their whims and caprices have
become greedy, selfish, dubious, thoughtless and irrational. Nigerian political parties have
proven themselves to be undemocratic and anti democratic institutions.
The political parties in Nigeria’s fourth republic are un-institutionalized as they revolve around
some prominent and influential individuals instead of establishing themselves as strong
institutions driven by values and ideologies. They are known for exclusion and non- inclusion,
102

the political parties do not observe internal democracy as required. Decision making in almost all
the political parties is bereft of transparency, accountability, consensus and consultation. All the
political parties need to be re-organized on the principle of all inclusiveness rather than
exclusion, Party officials’ needs to be trained to carry out their functions.
Critical attention needs to be paid to the political parties as institutions that play diverse but
central roles in democratic consolidation. The parties need to be re-engineered from mere
institutions for acquiring political power to effective institutions that are capable of structuring,
mediating and reconciling societal interests and conflicts. This means that issues of
organizational capacity, effective leadership, internal democracy, discipline, institutionalization
and personalization, ideological platforms of mobilization and linkage to civil society and the
masses have to be tackled. All political parties should practice internal democracy to make them
strong, effective and efficient through consistent observance of principles of transparency,
accountability, consultation and consensus building in policies and decision making.
REFERENCES
Abdu, H. (2002) “Political Party Formation and Electoral Process in Nigeria: Examining Some
Contentious Issues in the Review of 1999 Constitution”, in Igbuzor, Otive and Bamidele,
Ololade, eds., Contentious Issues in the Review of the 1999 Constitution. Lagos: Citizens
Forum for Constitutional Reforms. Pp 93-118.
Abdul-Jelil, A.G. (2009) ‘Godfatherism’ and Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: Violence and Political
Insecurity in Ibadan Being the Proceedings of the 2009 Conference in Zaria of The
French Institute for Research in Africa (IFRA Nigeria) in collaboration with the
Institute for Development Research A.B.U., Zaria From the 16th to the 19th of
November 2009.
Abubakar A. A (1998) Text of the National Broadcast
Abutudu, M. (2013) Political Parties and Elections in Nigeria's Fourth Republic, Being a paper
presented at National Conference on Political Parties and the Future of Democracy in
Nigeria, organized by the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS),
Kuru, in collaboration with the Democracy and Governance Development Project
(DGD) II of UNDP, 26-28 June, 2013
Adebajo, A. (2006) Prophets of Africa’s Renaissance: Nigeria and South Africa as Regional
Hegemons, Lagos: Nigerian Institute of International Affairs
Adejumobi, S. (2002) “The Relevance of the Presidential System of Government to Nigeria’s
Quest for Democracy”, The Constitution: A Journal of Constitutional Development,
Vol.3 (2), pp. 36 – 53.
Adele, B. J. (2001) Political Parties and Democracy in Nigeria. Lagos. Ijede
CommercialEnterprises
Adetula, V. A.O. And Adeyi, E. M. (2013) Money, Parties and Democracy in Nigeria Being a
paper presented at National Conference on Political Parties and the Future of
103

Democracy in Nigeria, organized by the National Institute for Policy and Strategic
Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, in collaboration with the Democracy and Governance
Development Project (DGD) II of UNDP, 26-28 June, 2013
Agbaje, A. and Adejumobi, S. (2006) “Do Votes Count? The Travails of Electoral Politics in
Nigeria” AfricaDevelopment 31, No. 3. Pp 25-44.
Agbaje, A. (2010) “Whose Catalyst? Party Politics and Democracy in the Fourth Republic:
From Theory to Denial,” Chapter 3, In Said Adejumobi (ed.), Governance and
Politics in Post-Military Nigeria: Changes and Challenges, New York, N.Y.: Palgrave
Macmillan
Agbaje, A. B. (1999)“Political Parties and Pressure Groups” in in R. Anifowose and F.
Enemou (eds), Elements of Politics. Lagos: Malthouse Press Ltd
Agbaje, A., Akande A., and Ojo, J., (2007) “Nigeria’s Ruling Party: A Complex Web of Power
and Money”. South African Journal of International Affairs, 14, 1, 79-97
Anifowose, R. (2004), ‘Political Parties and Party System in the Fourth Republic of Nigeria:
Issues, Problems and Prospects’ in Olurode, Lai and Anifowose, Remi (eds.) Issues in
Nigeria’s 1999 General Elections. Lagos, Nigeria: John West Publications Limited and
Rebonik Publications Ltd.
Asiwaju, A.I. (2000). “Sharing Best Practice Experiences in Democracy-Building in Non-French
Speaking African States”, draft paper presented at the 4th International Conference on New
and Emerging Democracies, Cotonou, Benin Republic, December 4-6.
Ayoade J. A. A. (2008) “Godfather Politics in Nigeria” In International Foundation for Electoral
Systems (IFES) Money, Politics and Corruption in Nigeria, Jos and Ibadan: IFES,
Ayoade, J .A.A (2006) “Godfather Politics in Nigeria” in Money, Politics and Corruption in
Nigeria, published byIFES78-87
Babatope O.A. (2012) Party Conflicts and Democracy Consolidation in Nigeria: Bumpy Past,
Shaky Future Journal of Research in Arts & Social Sciences Vol. 1 No. 1 June 2012.
Pp.12-20
Bogaards, M. (2010) “Ethnic Party Bans and Institutional Engineering in Nigeria”,
Democratization, 17, 4. 730- 749
Carothers, T. (2006) Confronting the Weakest Link: Aiding Political Parties in New
Democracies. CarnegieEndowment for International Peace: Washington, D.C.
Deme, M. (2013) Political Parties: A Defense Being a paper presented at National Conferenceon
Political Parties and the Future of Democracy in Nigeria, organized by the National
Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, in collaboration with the
Democracy and Governance Development Project (DGD) II of UNDP, 26-28 June, 2013
Diamond, L. (1995) “Democracy in Latin America: Degrees, Illusions and Directions for
Consolidation,” in Democracy and Communism: Theory, Reality, and the
Future, ed. Sung-chul Yang (Seoul: Korean Association of International Studies, 1995), 171
Diamond, L. (1996) ‘Towards democratic consolidation’ Journal of democracy 7(3) 7-16
Diamond, L., Kirk-Greene, A. and Oyediran, O. (1997) Transition without End:Nigerian Politics
and Civil Society under Babangida. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner
104

Dode, R. O. (2010) “Political Parties and the Prospects of Democratic Consolidation in

Nigeria: 1999 – 2006”, African Journal of Political Science and International Relations,
Vol. 4(5), pp. 188-194.
Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Duverger, M. (1959) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State
New York: John Wileyand Sons.
Fawole, A., (1999). “Diplomatic Blunders: The Ogoni Crisis and Nigeria's External
Relations.”The Nigerian Journal of Politics, 1(2)
Gen Abubakar, A. the text of National Broadcast. Guardian, July 21, 1998
Gunther, R. & Diamond, L. (2003) “Species of Political Parties: A New Typology,” Party
Politics, Vol. 9(2), Pp. 167-199
Gunther, R.P.N, Diamandurous,P.N and Puhle, H.J. (eds.) (1995) The Politics of Democratic
Consolidation: Southern Europe in Comparative Perspective. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press
Hague, R. and Harrop, M. (1987) Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction
Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press International
Ibeanu, O. (2013) Regulating Nigerian Political Parties: Role of the Independent National
Electoral Commission.
being a paper presented at National Conference on Political Parties and the Future of Democracy
in Nigeria, organized by the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies
(NIPSS), Kuru, in collaboration with the Democracy and Governance Development
Project (DGD) II of UNDP, 26-28 June, 2013
Ibeanu, Okechukwu (2009) “Conceptualising the Specificities of Direct Capture in the 2007
Elections” in Jibrin Ibrahim and Okechukwu Ibeanu (eds) The 2007 Nigerian General
Elections and the subversion of Popular Sovereignty (Abuja: CDD)
Ikelegbe, A. (2013) Political Parties and Violence Being a paper presented at National
Conference on Political Parties and the Future of Democracy in Nigeria, organized
by the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, in
collaboration with the Democracy and Governance Development Project (DGD) II of
UNDP, 26-28 June, 2013
Iroanusi, S. (2000) The Making of the Fourth Republic, Lagos: Sam Iroanusi Publications
Jibrin J. (2006) Nigeria Country Report, Abuja: CDD & I-IDEA.
Jinadu, A. L. (2013) Elections, Democracy & Political Parties in Nigeria: Trends and
Trajectories. Being a paper presented at National Conference on Political Parties and the Future
of Democracy in Nigeria, Organized by the National Institute for Policy and Strategic
Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, in collaboration with the Democracy and Governance
Development Project (DGD) II of UNDP, 26-28 June, 2013
Kari, A. G. and Uchenna, E.E. (2011) Internal Party Democracy and political stability in
Nigeria’sFourth Republic: issues, Problems and Solution in review of Nigeria
Political Economy Vol.1. No 11. July – December 2011. Pp. 17-32.
105

Kura, S.Y. B. (2011) Political Parties and Democracy in Nigeria: Candidate Selection,
Campaign and Party Financing in People’s Democratic Party. Journal of
Sustainable Development in Africa (Volume 13, No.6, 2011)
Kura, S.Y.B. (2008) “African Ruling Parties and the making of Authoritarian
Democracies:Extending the Frontiers of Social Justice in Nigeria”, African Journal of
Conflict Resolution, Vol. 8, No. 2.
Lawson, K. 1980. Political Parties: A Comparative Perspective. New Haven: Yale University
Press
Lee, S. (2007) Democratic Transition and the Consolidation of Democracy in South Korea
Taiwan Journal of
Democracy, Volume 3, No.1 pp.99-125
Linz, J. (1978)The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Manning, C. (2005). “Assessing African Party Systems after the Third Wave,” Party Politics,
Vol. 11(6)
Momoh, A. (2013) Party System and Democracy in Nigeria being a paper presented at
National Conference on
Political Parties and the Future of Democracy in Nigeria,organized by the National Institute for
Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, in collaboration with the Democracy and
Governance Development Project (DGD) II of UNDP, 26-28 June, 2013
Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) (2005) Revised Version of the
1999Annual Lecture of Nigeria Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, on October, 14, 1999
Held at the National Universities Commission, Lagos. In Elaigwu (Ed) Nigeria,
Yesterday and today for tomorrow Essays in Governance and Society
Nnoli, O. (2003), Introduction to Politics. Enugu, Snaap Press Ltd
Nwosu H. N. (2008) Laying the Foundation for Nigeria’s Democracy: My Account of June
12,1993 Presidential
Election and Its Annulment, Macmillan Nigeria
Ogundiya, I. S. (2009) “A decade of Democratic Governance in Nigeria” in Ogundiya, I. S. et al
(eds) A Decade of Re-democratization in Nigeria (1999-2009). Ibadan: Ayayayugu
Publishers
Ojo, E., (2008) “Vote Buying in Nigeria.” IFES. Money, Politics and Corruption in Nigeria Jos
& Ibadan: IFES
Ojo. E.E and Lawal E.E. (2013) “Godfather Politics: The collapse of the Saraki Dynstic in
Kwara State Politics” in John A. Ayoade and Adeoye A. Akinsanya (eds) Nigeria’s
Critical Election 2011 (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books
Okoye, F. [2009}, “Restorative Justice and the Defence of People’s Mandate: The Judiciary
inthe Aftermath of the 2007 Elections in Nigeria,” Chapter 5, In Ibrahim, Jibrin and
Ibeanu, Okechukwu (2011), Direct Capture: the 2007 Nigerian Elections and Subversion
of Popular Sovereignty, Abuja: Centre for Democracy and Development
106

Olagunju, O. (1992) “The Party System and the Creation of Two Political Parties”, in Uya Okon
E. (ed) Contemporary Nigeria, Argentina, EDIPUBLIS
Olaniyan, A. (2009) “Inter and Intra Party Squabbles in Nigeria” in Ogundiya, I.S. et al (eds), A
decade of Re- democratization in Nigeria (1999-2009). Ibadan: Ayayayuyu Publishers
Omotola, J.S. (2009) “Nigerian Parties and Political Ideology” in Journal of Alternative
Perspectives in the Social Sciences, Vol 1, No 3, 612-634.
Omotola, J.S. (2010) Political Parties and the Quest for Political Stability in Nigeria
TaiwanJournal of Democracy, Volume 6, No. 2: 125-145
Onabanjo, D. (2013) How Tinubu may shape 2015 Tell, August, 19
Orji, N. (2013) Political Parties, Civil Society and Democracy in Nigeria Being a paper
presented at National Conference on Political Parties and the Future of Democracy in
Nigeria, organized by the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, in
collaboration with the Democracy and Governance Development Project (DGD) II of
UNDP, 26-28 June, 2013
Pogoson, A.I. (2013) Women, Political Parties and Exclusion in Nigeria: 1999-2012 Being
apaper presented at National Conference on Political Parties and the Future of
Democracy in Nigeria, organized by the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies
(NIPSS), Kuru, in collaboration with the Democracy and Governance Development
Project (DGD) II of UNDP, 26-28 June, 2013
Przeworski, A. (1991) Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reform in Eastern
Europe and Latin America, New York: Cambridge University Press
Schedler, A. (1998) Preventing Political Violence in Nigeria. Ibadan: university press
Schimitter, P. (1992) “The Consolidation of Democracy and Representation of Social Groups,”
AmericanBehavioral Scientists 35 (March/June 1992)
Simbine, A. T. (2013) Single Party Dominance and Democracy in Nigeria:The Peoples
Democratic Party Being a paper presented at National Conference on Political Parties and
the Future of Democracy in Nigeria, organised by the National Institute for Policy and
Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, in collaboration with the Democracy and Governance
Development Project (DGD) II of UNDP, 26-28 June, 2013.
Simbine, A. T., (2007) “The People’s Verdict on Political Parties & Nigeria’s Democratic
Experiment: 1999-2001”, In Joab-Peterside, Sofiri & Ukoha Ukiwo (eds) The Travails of
Democracy in Nigeria, 1999-2003 and Beyond, Port Harcourt, Centre for Advanced
Social Science (CASS), Chapter 11, pp 207-232
Transition Monitoring Group (2003) Do The Votes Count? Final Report of the 2003 General
Elections in Nigeria
Tukur, M. (2004) Leadership and Governance in Nigeria the Relevance of Values Great Britain:
Hodder Stoughtoneducational
Ukaeje, O. (2011) Dearth of internal party democracy as Bane of Nigeria’s Democracy in the
Fourth Republic in review of Nigeria Political Economy Vol.1. No 11. July – December 2011.
Pp. 17-32.
107

Valenzuela, J. S. (1990) Democratic Consolidation in Post-Transitional Settings: Notion,

Process, and Facilitating Conditions. Working Paper #150 - December 1990 In Scott
Mainwaring, Guillermo O’Donnell, and J. Samuel Valenzuela, eds., Issues and Prospects
of Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative
Perspective Kellogg Institute series with University of Notre Dame Press
Ware, Alan (1979) The Logic of Party Democracy. New York: St. Martin’s Press
Yagboyaju, D. A. (2012) Party System, Democratization and National Development in Nigeria’s
Fourth Republic: An Appraisal of the Interconnections. Business and Managemen
Journal Vol.1 (2), pp. 54-61, August, 2012
Yagboyaju, D.A. (2013) Democratic consolidation, fiscal responsibility and national
development: An appraisal of the fourth Republic. African Journal of Political Science
and International Relations Vol. 7(2) pp. 100-106, May 2013
Yaqub, N. (2002) “Political Parties and the Transition Process” in Onuoha, B. And Fadakinte,
M.M. (eds.) Transition Politics in Nigeria, 1970-1999, Lagos, Malthouse Publishers,
pp. 118 – 134.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Akubo, A. Aduku is a Research Assistant and the Programme Officer, Centre for Inter- African
and Human Development Studies (CIDES) Jos, Nigeria.
Yakubu Adejo: School of General Studies, Federal Polytechnic, Kaura Namoda, Yobe State,
Nigeria
108

Political Party 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Party 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Party 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Journal of Political Science and Administration

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

POLITICAL PARTIES AND DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION IN NIGERIA’S

Akubo, A. Aduku and Yakubu, Adejo Umoru*

KEYWORDS: Political Parties, Democratic Consolidation, Fourth Republic, Democracy,

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

Nigeria’s political parties emerged in the “historical-situation” or trajectory of disenchantment

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION AND POLITICAL PARTIES: CONCEPTUAL

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

Democratic consolidation is obstructed by or destroyed causally by the effects of

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

participation and mobilization by marginalized groups; and more effective protection

With consolidation,democracy becomes regularized and deeply internalized in social institutional

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

POLITICAL PARTIES AND DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION: THE NEXUS

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)

Vol.2,No.3, pp.79-108, September 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

of parties as essentially instruments through which like-minded people organizes to enthrone

CHALLENGES OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION

ISSN 2054-6335(Print), ISSN 2054-6343(Online)