Fagbadebo, Agunyai and Odeyemi, 2014. a Reflection on Political Parties As Institutions
Fagbadebo, Agunyai and Odeyemi, 2014. A Reflection on Political Parties as Institutions of Good Governance, Views from Nigeria’s Presidential System
A REFLECTION ON POLITICAL PARTIES AS INSTITUTIONS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE: VIEWS FROM NIGERIA’S PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM[1]
Omololu Michael Fagbadebo[2] Samuel Chukwudi Agunyai Temitayo Isaac Odeyemi
Abstract
Political parties play pivotal role in democracy. Indeed, political parties provide the platform for the elites to present themselves for political position in the governing of the polity. The essence of the government isto implement policies aimed at promoting the interest and the welfare of the people.Thus, political parties design programmes and policies purposively intended for the realisation of the desires of the people. Inputs from political parties as agents of political mobilization in the political process provide windows of opportunities for the political system to function in shaping the direction of the policies of the government. In other words, political parties are institution necessary for the promotion of good governance. To what extent has the Nigerian polity benefitted from the activities of political parties? In what ways have political parties shape the direction of government policies toward good governance? Do political parties in Nigeria possess the characters of institutions positioned capable of influencing government policies? Data gather through case study method shows that Nigerian political parties, because of their composition, origin and the environment they operate lack the capacity to institutionalize the culture of accountability in governance. Using disunified elite theory, this paper argues that political elites use political parties as the platforms for the realisation of their personal interests at the expense of the state.Divisive politics and the culture of impunity have stifled the strengths of the political parties to emerge as institutions of good governance. The paper suggests a reorientation of political practice in the Nigerian presidential system.
Keywords: impunity, vested interest, divisions, transparency, disunity, elites
Introduction
Political parties play pivotal role in democracy and represent integral parts of governance in political systems. They are, as observed by Doorenspleet (2003), ‘the formal vehicles of political competition in a democratic state’. The existence of multiple political parties facilitates open competition for the votes of the electorate. In virtually all countries, especially liberal democracies, political parties remain important institutions that define the character of the political system as the principal links between citizens and the government (Thomas, 2001). Indeed, political parties provide the platform for the elites to present themselves for political position in the governing of the polity.Political parties provide the platform for political participations providing opportunities for like-minded people with the singular objective of contesting and winning political power within the state (Omotola 2010).
In an ideal setting, the responsibilities expected of political parties are important to the political system. At the minimum, political parties serve as a formidable democratization force by articulating and aggregating public opinion and interests, engendering popular participation, and promoting political education and national integration (Omotola, 2010). When political parties function in this regard, they help in the overall stability of the system.Simply put, political parties cloth regimes with legitimacy through the provision of leadership, ideology and avenues for political participation (Boafo-Arthur 2003). Essentially, political parties are instruments for political recruitment as well as providing opportunities for articulating group interests by means of exerting pressure on the political system. Thus, through this medium, activities of political parties impact the entire process of governance and the extent to which these functions are performed equally determine the quality of governance in the political system.
In practice, attempts at studying the timeline of political developments across nations must necessarily feature the activities of party systems, types and overall functioning. In Nigeria, a paradigm shift informed the adoption of the presidential system of government starting with the dawn of the Second Republic in 1979. Presidentialism was a deviation from the norms of parliamentary democracy, which the country had experimented in the First Republic. In 1999, following return to civil rule after successive military interregnum, the departing Abdulsalam Abubakar regime drew largely from the 1979 Constitution in the drafting of the 1999 presidential Constitution, which heralded the Fourth Republic, and alongside it, a resuscitation of presidentialism. The polity has since seen several political parties who have impacted the system in different ways and whose actions and inactions in one way or the other have left telling effects on the democratic process, vis a vis, the overall quality of governance in the country.
The paper has seven sections. Aside from the foregoing introduction, the second section reviews the place of political parties in democratic process while section three discusses political parties as institutions of governance. Section four reviews the state of governance in Nigeria’s presidential system which also dovetails to section five that canters on the crisis of governance in a multiparty presidential system. Section six concludes with prospects of good governance in a regime of party politics.
Political parties indemocratic process
Some features are important in distinguishing political parties from other interest groups in political systems. White and Shea (2000) identify three principal characteristics to distinguish political parties. These are nomination of candidates for electoral purposes, development of positions through manifestoes on arrays of policy issues and that political parties are quasi-public institutions capable of forming the government (White and Shea 2000).Scholars also distinguish political parties as organized and registered political interest groups with members having reconcilable ideas on how the state should be governed, who seek to capture the machineries of government by constitutional means and govern according to their ideasOviasuyi, 2006).Lapalombara (1966) shared this viewpoint describing political party as a formal organization whose self-conscious, primary purpose was to place and maintain in public office, persons who would control, alone or in coalition, the machinery of government. Thus, the major objective of political party is to gain control of and exercise state power either solely or in cooperation with others.
From a comparative perspective, Grigsby (2012) contends that political parties are organizations that put forward proposed leaders whom they support for official positions in government. In democracies, for example, parties generally nominate candidates to compete in elections for office. In non-democracies, governed by ruling parties interested in preventing rivals to their power, parties may become the major obstacles to electoral competition and may place their leaders in power by proclamation. In democraticand non-democraticpolitical systems, some political parties may be subversive and seek to gain power by putting their proposed leaders in office by force. That is, parties may operate by competing for office, by curtailing competition for office, or by attempting to impose their leaders through violent channels (Grigsby, 2012). Grigsby’s submission essentially provides a summary of the link between what political parties could mean in both democratic and non-democratic settings, while also buttressing how the nature of political system could give different meanings to the interpretation of what a political party is.
Edmund Burke (1797) offers a more encompassing definition of political party as ‘a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavour, the national interest, upon some particular principle which they are all agreed’ (quoted in Omotola, 2010). However, Alan Ware (1995, p.5) offers the following definition, which, though not all-embracing, captures the core roles of political parties in many political systems:
A political party is an institution that (a) seeks influence in a state, often by attempting to occupy positions in government, and (b) usually consists of more than a single interest in the society and so to some degree attempts to ‘aggregate interests (Ware 1995, p.5).
Alan Ware (1995, p.6) justifies his definition by arguing that it focuses attention on the centrality of the state as the object of party activity. He recognises that for many, but not for all,political parties, being ‘in government’ were important means of exercising influence especially in liberal democracies. This definition differentiates political parties from pressure groups, while recognising that in particular cases the distinction may not always be a clear one; and avoids the potentially misleading assertion that parties are united in shared principles or opinions. What can be inferred from the foregoing is that the basic distinguishing factor of a political party from other political associations, unions and groups in the political system is the quest to occupy public office at different levels.
There has been quite a lot of attention in the literature on the roles political parties are to play in the polity. Reilly and Nordlund (2008) have notedthe centrality of political parties to certain issues necessary for democratic development in transition democracies. Political parties, in addition to their recruitment function, are responsible for organizing voters, aggregating and articulating interests with a view to constructing policy alternatives. This is necessary for providing the basis for coordinated electoral and legislative activity. This is a crucial assignment in representative democracies seeking to guarantee democratic governance (Huntington 1968).
Political parties represent political constituencies and interests, recruit and socialize new candidates for office, set policy-making agendas, integrate disparate groups and individuals into the democratic process, and form the basis of stable political coalitions and the government. Collectively, this means that political parties are primary channels for building accountable and responsive government. (Reilly and Nordlund, 2008). It can equally be asserted that beyond these functional activities, political parties also provide a number of deeper, systemic supports that help make democracy work effectively. Political parties mediate between the demands of the citizens on the one hand and the actions of the government on the other, aggregating the diverse demands of the electorate into coherent public policy. It can also be argued that by providing a link between the citizens and their political representatives, political parties are also the primary channels in democratic systems for holding governments accountable.
Political parties are mechanisms to organise participation in public affairs in an increasingly differentiated and complex society, being regarded as organisations, which bring together people with a shared outlook on the world or political ideology and which serve to aggregate demands that these people have vis-à-vis the political system. Thus understood, political parties are the means through which participation in politics gets actual meaning and becomes a reality (Omotola 2010). In situations where the involvement of the people at large in day-to-day political affairs is practically impossible – a feature that characterises most contemporary societies – political parties are the vehicles that bring citizens into closer contact with their representatives and, through the contact between members and professional politicians, help to develop common viewpoints on public affairs (Hout, 2003).
In liberal democratic systems, political parties tend to locate their activities around the task of conducting and winning competitive elections. In addition, political parties also recruit and train political leaders, embark on political socialisation of the citizenry through political campaigns, seminars and workshops. Political parties perform other functions such as the communication of political information with a view to educating the electorates. This contributes to the party’s success at the polls because information is generally tailored to persuade the public to appreciate the party’s virtues and capabilities if given the mandate to rule.
Gunther and Diamond (2001) identify seven major functions of political parties to include nomination of candidates for elections, electoral mobilization, structuring and societal representation. Others are interest aggregation, forming and sustaining governments as well as social integration.In contemporary societies however, not all political parties get to perform all these functions or get to perform them well. Depending on the party type in operation, one function or set of these functions may take pre-eminence over another or others. In this realm, Reilly and Nordlund (2008) offers that in many countries, particularly transitional democracies, parties struggle to play these roles. Instead, parties exhibit a range of pathologies that undercut their ability to deliver the kind of systemic benefits on which representative politics depends. They have discovered that political parties were poorly institutionalised with limited membership, weak policy capacity and shifting bases of support. In addition, they reinforce primordial interests with inability to enforce discipline necessary for collective actions in the parliament. Consequent upon this, political parties often struggle to manage social conflicts and fail to deliver public goods and thus to promote development (Reilly and Nordlund, 2008).
These deficiencies notwithstanding, the central roles and functions political parties can play across different political systems remain ever important in the polity. Parties are strong democratic institutions without which political contestations could not effectively take place. The more consolidated democracy becomes, the brighter the chances of strengthening political parties. In fact, it is doubtful if one can even talk of democratic consolidation in the absence of strong political parties whose existence actually underlines democratic governance.
Political Elites in democratic Process
A set of pivotal actor in the activities of political parties is the elite.Political elites comprise of the people who exercise a disproportionately large amount of influence, authority and power, including force within the political system. This set of people has and exercise actual or potential influence on decision-making and the distribution of spoils and patronage more than the other members do (Zartman, 1974).
There are three basic types of elites identified by scholars (1) the “pluralistic” or “consensually unified” type that exists in most Western societies today and that existed in a few of them in earlier times; (2) the "totalitarian” or "ideologically unified" type in nation-states organized along communist, fascist, or theocratic lines; and (3) the "divided" or "disunified" elite.
Consensually unified elite exist when its members
(1)share a largely tacit consensus about rules and codes of political conduct amounting to a "restrained partisan-ship"
(2)participate in a more or less comprehensively integrated structure of inter-action that provides them with relatively reliable and effective access to each other and to the most central decision-makers (Higley and Burton, 1989).
National elite is disunified when its members (1) share few or no understandings about the proprieties of political conduct and (2) engage in only limited and sporadic interactions across factional or sectoral boundaries. The basic situation of persons composing this elite type is one of deep insecurity-the fear, usually rooted in experience, that all is lost if some other person or faction gets the upper hand. Accordingly, members of disunified elite routinely take extreme measures to protect their interest not minding the implication on the political system.
Scholars have argued that the behavior of powerful actors or elites is crucial to democratic stability especially in transiting political systems (O'Donnell and Schmitter 1986; Lopez-Pintor 1987; Malloy 1987). In other words, elite choices determine the nature of democratic transitions and breakdowns. Nevertheless, Higley and Burton (1989:17) have argued, that ‘democratic transitions and breakdowns can best be understood by studying basic continuities and changes in the internal relations of national elites’.
The disunified type is more prevalent in modern democracy especially in the developing nations. The concept of vested interest rather than national interest is the yardstick for their involvement in political process. Thus, their attachment to pecuniary goals induces instability without any hope of positive transformation. Higley and Burton nave argued that disunified elites are ubiquitous and their dispositions are often antithetical to regime stability even if the political situation is within the ambit of the law. Thus, resort to illegal administration or manipulation of rule to achieve personal objectives becomes the norm.
The analysis of regime instability in Nigeria’s presidential system, especially among the political parties, is better understood on the plank of disunited elites. In the application of the instrumentality of impeachment provisions in the constitution, it is obvious that the elites are more interested in the pursuit of their desired objectives at the expense of the integrity of the statutes. Divisions in the ranks of the elites in the three arms of government subjected the rules to personal interpretation and brazen manipulation.
Political Parties as Institutions of Good Governance
Following our elaborations on political parties and their place in the democratic process, here we focus attention on the nexus between good governance and political party as an institution. We begin by examining the concept of ‘good governance. At its lowest ebb, governance refers to ways in which men and materials are administered to achieve the development goals of the society. The World Bank (quoted in Yagboyaju, 2011) sees it as ‘the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development’. This further underscores the place of politics in governance. Fadakinte (2008, p.11) defines it as ‘exercising power and authority and also appropriating resources’. This goes to show the place of the management of both human and material resources of a particular human society as crucial elements of governance. The extent to which this is achieved optimally underscores the quality of governance being experienced in a particular social system.
Governance goes beyond the government; a complex yet essential universal force that manifests in all human societies. Governance is at work in people’s daily lives to manage human relationships, just as corporations and countries use it to manage their interaction and activities. In this regard, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) offers a more encompassing definition of governance as the: