IDEOLOGY AND PARTY SYSTEM IN NIGERIA

IDEOLOGY AND PARTY SYSTEM IN NIGERIA




BY


Ma’azu Mohammed Yusif


Paper presented at Postgraduate Discussion Group Department of Political Science BUK, 1984


When at the eve of return to civilian rule, a debate was opened on the issue of ideology and politics, the question took a much more forceful and wider dimension among Nigerian academics. Recently, with experience of party politics, and once more the failure of civilian government and another coming of the military, the question is further re-visited both by academics and even journalists. This state of disagreement about this crucial issue in Nigeria’s politics is perhaps correctly described by Asikpo Essien-Ibok as “the crisis of ideology”. In an article, published in the punch of Monday July, 1984, and titled “The crisis of ideology”, Asikpo-Ibok did not waste time calling for reconsideration of the question of ideology in the politics of this country. For the purpose of illuminating into the said crisis of ideology, it is worthy to identify the trends into which the disagreement follows. In accord with the interests and orientations of the participants in the debate, the question is approached at different levels. These include philosophical rationalisation of the system; value and orientations; economic management and participation and at level of having a viable and stable political system for governance. Put together, three schools of thought could confidently be identified. The first is the absence of ideology school. The proponents of this school, with some ‘Nationalist’ tendencies are influenced by the ethnic tensions of the first republican politics are looking for some value orientations that will tame in the cohesion in the body politics of Nigeria1. The second school takes its point of departure from the form of economic management and participation and therefore argue that Nigerian’s ideology is that of mixed-economy2. The third comes from various tendencies of left scholarship, who taking their view from the nature of mode of production, have the view that Nigeria operates a capitalist mode of production, as such Nigeria has an ideology which is capitalists3. For conveniences and at least for the purpose of continuing with the discussion, it will be absurd to subscribe to the ‘absence of ideology’ school or even with the economist posture of ‘mixed-economy conception of an ideology. But an understanding of the radical view requires a further elucidation of the problem of what is ideology.

The Concept of Ideology
The notion of ideology is as elusive as identified in the three schools of thought outlined above. If we take the first school, we may perhaps ask, in what society, elites organised in different associations do not have differences often articulated at levels of ethnic prejudices? In so far as one is talking about lack of cohesion among national elites, there is ample evidence to show that, in many developed European countries, political cleavages are also based on the basis of regional, tribal or even religious questions4. The second school, of mixed-economy conception is as ridiculous as it is vague. This is because all economies are mixed to more or less extent. The only difference is the nature and relative weight of the mixture. It is therefore really irrelevant to talk of ‘mixed-economy as a national ideology. Thus discussing about the ‘mixed-economy’ question in Nigeria A. Fadahunsi clearly exposed its inadequacy when he stated that

“As it is practiced in Nigeria it is essentially one in which the state is subsidising the activities of the foreign dominated private sector through the creation of the so-called climate – provision of infrastructural facilities, suitable fiscal and monetary policy, tax incentives – for its operation”5.

From the preceding analysis it should be fairly obvious that the only likely reason for such problems is the manner the whole argument is determined by the liberal conception of the term. While we shall not make any attempt to trace the intellectual history and philosophical discourse of the term ideology, the following definitions will provide us with a satisfactory liberal position on what is idelogy6.
1. In one sense, it is used inter-changeably with ‘belief system’, showing some sets of political attitudes held by an individual or by groups of people. Thus Pierre Bonnafice and Michel Carty define ideology as “a cluster of ideas, representations, and beliefs common to a specific social group but relative to the present and future structure and organisation of the global society to which the group belongs”.
2. Similarly, ideology is looked as a body of ideas consisting of ethical interpretations and principles that set forth the purposes, organisation and boundaries of political life. Thus, as Mittleman argued, ideologies are “variable responses through which efforts are made to bring the members of a system to the point of subscribing to the legitimacy of authorities and regime or sustaining that belief once it does exist”.

As is shown with the cases of ‘absence of ideology’ and ‘mixed-economy schools, the liberal definitions of ideology is criticised abstracting the relations between politics and economic foundation by ignoring the basic economic forces and class relations that may possibly determined and justify the conduct of politics in the light of the form and consciousness of the dominant class forces7.

The Marxist Conception of Ideology
In general perspective, Marxist conception of ideology gives a class a primacy. While defining what is ideology, Franz Schurmann stated that ideology is generally defined as “the manner of thinking characteristic of a class”8. Accordingly ideology expresses directly or indirectly, the views, ideas and interests of a definite social class. Thus in capitalist society ideology is perceived to reflect the interest of the dominant social class i.e. the capitalists. Furthermore, in Marxist Science the ideology of a given society is examined not only from the ideas, but from the unity of ideas and actions of the class at political and economic levels9. The problems of this formulation is however, raised somewhere10, so we do not need to mention it again. But in addition, the type of conception that oppose to this perspective is the argument which posited that in developing countries, analysis on the basis of classes is insignificant, because classes are still in the process of formation and that some sociological variables like ethnicity blurs any class categorisation11. For the sake of convenience, we shall subscribe to this position.

Ideology: Class and Ethnic Relations: The Nigerian Context
There is an approach in the Marxist tradition of analysis of Nigerian politics which subordinate ethnic factors to classes in the conduct and character of politics. In other words, ethnicity is simply regarded as bourgeoisie tactics to manipulate the masses. Dr. Bala Usman has made a contribution in this framework of analysis12. In his attempt to penetrate into his manipulation theory, Bala goes to the extent of defining what is manipulation? He said:


“Manipulation means essentially, controlling the action of a person or group without that person or group knowing the goals, purpose and method of that control and without even being aware that a form of control is being exercised on them at all”13.

In order to justify his argument, Bala cited so many examples. In one context he said:

“A few days ago the annual Public Accounts of the Metal Box Company were published in the papers. One of the directors is called Mr. Silas Daniyen and another is called Alhaji Shehu Malami. One is Mr. Silas and the other is Alhaji Shehu. Are they involved in any competition in Metal Box boardroom? This is presumably what we are supposed to believe. We are supposed to believe that Mr. Silas is somehow representing Christians and Alhaji Shehu, somehow the Muslims, and they compete in Metal Box to obtain scarce resources for the ethno-religious communities…”14.

Another greatest contribution comes from Okwudiba Nnoli who also argued that ethnicity is merely a reflection of class interests. Nnoli stated that ethnicity

“is an element of the ideological super-structure of society (which), rests on, is functional for and is determined by the infrastructure of society, the mode of production15.

Pointless to say, both Bala and Nnoli do believe the signigicance of ethnicity in Nigeria’s politics. They are unrealistic, for in the history of politics in Nigeria, the pattern is largely influenced by the ethnic configurations inherited from colonial times.


Thus while we must reject a class interpretation, an ethnic one or a-dualist ethno-class analysis will be more useful. Adualist analysis was already made by some African radical scholars like, the Colin Leys (1977) “underdevelopment in Kenya”. Mohmoud Mamdanis (1976)” politics and class formation in Uganda”, and Issa Shivjis (1975)” class struggle in Tanzania”16. Such ethno-class analysis of political parties in Nigeria, in the second republic was made by Eskor Toyo, when he wrote:
“The National Party of Nigeria, the party running the Federal Government, is an opportunistic ganging up of traditionalists anxious to preserve the last remnants of feudalistic traditionalism on the one hand and ambitious bourgeoisie elements brought together by a common desire to grow rich or richer from a share in the Federal revenue on the other.

Of the other parties, the Unity party of Nigeria, the Nigerian Peoples’ party and the Nigerian Advance party are actually one party. The principal factor keeping the UPN, NPP and GNPP represent respectively the conflicting interests of the rival Yoruba and Ibo bourgeoisie elites. In the GNPP we witness one form of the traditional Kanuri repudiation of the ruling-class among the Fulani”17.

Similarly, in the debate about the Nigeria’s ruling-class which started during the Marx’s conference at ABU18, a group among the ABU intellectuals identified the National party of Nigeria as a party of the Northern bourgeoisie. They stated that:

“Within the Nigerian ruling-class there exist a section that is bound by family ties from among the bourgeoisie in the North whose cohesion is based on feudal and semi-feudal relations”19.

Political Parties and Ideology in Nigeria
Nigeria was one of the fortunate African countries to operate a multi-party system. Unlike the conception of ideology, the term ‘party-system’ has not been subjected to as much debate by academics. As such, there is virtually little body of theory to explain the phenomenon of party-system. All what we find in the available literature is that a multi-party system is associated with liberty, freedom and democracy. Accordingly the existence of multi-party system will reflect different programme, ideologies and principles for choice of alternative government by the people20. On the other hand, we are told by the editors of Journal of African Marxism that:

“The question of multi-party system is not just an academic one. One basic point however needs to be emphasised that the renunciation of a multi-party system and European type of parliamentarism cannot serve as evidence of democracy nor as a proof of its absence. Conditions peculiar and specific in each country should be taken into account. In general the need for one or several parties should be determined not by subjective opinion of individuals or parties but objective factors…”21.

The basic ideological differences between Nigerian political parties before and after independence was more manifest in ethnic traces than pure class interests22. When parties were first formed, they did so in the context of National Independence struggle. But a major set-back that militated against a common struggle for their common objective was undoubtly the ethnic question. Because, the major parties had their bases and background among the major ethnic groups. To give an example, the Northern peoples Congress was a party of the Northern notables with a Northern interests. The programme of action of the NPC did not even conceal, the party’s ethnic background and interests. The programme is as follows:23
1) One North, one people irrespective of rank, tribe, or religion.
2) Peace, stability and progress in the North for the benefit of all and sundry
3) To guarantee to every Northerner freedom of religion without fear of victimisation.
4) To uphold and strengthen our culture and traditions which are compatible with contemporary ideas of progress.
5) To provide educational facilities for the benefit of young and old, male and female, in such a way that ignorance would be eradicated.
6) To Northernise all our public services so as to construct our people with the task of governing us.
7) To strengthen and support an impartial and independent judiciary.
8) To fight and oppose anyone be he a chief or an Emir, who has detracted from the true course of justice.
9) To encourage peaceful co-existence with non-Nigerians and Non-Northerners living in the North provided they remained loyal and accept the leaders of the North.
10) All officers transferred to the Northern Nigerian civil service will continue to have security of tenure if they remained loyal.
11) The North will continue to need the services of expatriate officers but only those willing to serve us as servants rather than masters will be supported
12) To enhance the dignity of the North and fight for the self-government of the region as soon as possible.
13) To place Northerners in senior positions in the regional service and to guarantee higher education to our children so as to prepare them for responsible position in the service.

This type of ethnic ideology manifested by the NPC is also applicable to the rest of the political parties, in respect of protecting their regional interests24. Furthermore, at level of leadership, the major political parties had their national leadership largely from their ethnic origin. The table below succinctly validate this point

Ethnic distribution of leaders of the major Nigerian parties in 1963 as percentage of total25

Party
Igbo
Other Eastern Groups
Yoruba
Other Western Groups
Hausa/Fulani
Other Northern Groups
Others
NPC
-
-
6.8
-
51.3
32.4
9.4
NCNC
49.3
9.9
26.7
5.6
2.8
-
5.6
AG
4.5
15.2
68.2
7.0
3.0
-
1.5

Also, during the 1964 general elections, the parties won largest percentage of their votes from their ethnic bases. The table below also demonstrated the parties ethnic bases.
1964 Election Results and Final Party Total26

NPC
NNDP
NCNC
AG
NPF
INDS
Total
North
162
-
-
-
4
1
167
West
-
36
5
15
-
1
57
Mid-West
-
-
14
-
-
-
14
East
-
-
49
4
-
2
55
Lagos
-
-
1
2
-
1
4
Final party Totals
162
36
84
21
4
5
312

The table above illuminated the significance of ethnic factors in Nigerian politics during the first republic. In fact as post and Vickers argued what led to the collapse of the second republic were the “destructive twins of tribalism and regionalism”27.

When Nigeria was in a process of return to civilian rule in 1979, observers watched with keen interest whether political competition would take the old ethnic in-fighting of the ‘First Republic’. Despite the uproar about the cohesion as well as the sharpening of class differences, as a result of the economic development profelled by oil boom28, during the long period of military rule, the formation of political parties in 1978 followed neatly the old ethnic line. In fact, the major political parties i.e. the National party of Nigeria, the Unity party of Nigeria and the Nigeria’s people party were often described as the revivals of the old Northern peoples’ Congress, Action Group and National Council of Nigerian Citizens respectively29. Furthermore, whereas the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, provided for a Federal character in leadership and spread of a party as a condition for registration30, the inner core of the leadership of the registered political parties could be easily traced to a single ethnic group. And during both the 1979 and 1983 general elections the pattern of support was not much different from the general elections of the First Republic31. Perhaps, the only slight differences was the penetration of NPN and NPP into some areas, and that could be explained to projection of similar ethnic ideologies like religion and in synthesising a ‘minority ethnic interest’.

Conclusion
Interpretation of ideology from a purely class perspective is unrealistic in analysis of politics of a developing society. Factors, like tribalism and religion do play a potent force. In Nigeria, despite an obvious class distinctions, at political level, ethnic cleavages, blur real class interests.


FOOTNOTES
1. Dr. U. A. Jalingo, embraced this idea, at a public lecture on ‘Ideology and party politics’ organised by the students union of Bayero University, Kano in 1977.

2. This is the view of constitution Drafting Committee and the members of Constituent Assembly. See chapter 2, of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979.

3. See for example, Bala Usman, ‘For the Liberation of Nigeria’ New Beacon Book Ltd, London, 1979.

4. See Stanley Henig (ed), “Political parties in the European Community”, George Allen and Unwin, P.51, 1979.

5. A. Fadahunsi, “The constitution, parties and ideology: Prospects for National Unity and Welfare” in S. Kumo (ed.) Issues in the Nigerian Draft Constitution: Institute of Administration ABU, 1977, Pg. 108

6. For simplified elaborations of these definitions see, James H. Mittelonan, Ideology and Politics in Uganda, Cornell University Press, London, 1975 Pg. 38-45.

7. For various criticisms of the liberal conception of ideology, see Robin Blackbum (ed.) ideology in Social Sciences.

8. Franz Schurmann, Ideology and organisation in communist China, University of California press, Barkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1966, Pg. 18.

9. Franz Schurmann, opt-cit. In the context of Nigeria, see H. Ijembi, “Manifestoes of five political parties”, paper presented at Marx Conference ABU, 1983; S. Bako, “PRP and class struggle” (unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, ABU, 1983).

10. S.G. Tyoden, “Ideology and Nigerian Politics” some Marxist Theoretical quibbles”, in U.B Uba (ed.) Proceedings of the Nineth Annual Conference of the Nigerian Political Science Association, Held at the Plateau Hotel, Jos 1-8 July, 1982 Pgs. 114-122.

11. See for instance, Sklar, R.L. “The nature of class domination in Africa” Journal of Modern African studies, 17, 4 (1977) Pgs. 531-52. This approach dominated the teaching of political science, in the centre of African studies, University of Edinburgh. Virtually all the readings in the course of politics is aimed at proving the insignificance of class analysis in African Politics.

12. B. Y. Usman, Opt. Cit

13. B. Y. Usman, Pg. 87

14. B. Y. Usman, Pg. 85

15. Okwudibu Nnoli, Ethnic politics in Nigeria, Fourth Dimension publishers, Enugu, 1978, Pg. 11

16. Mahmoud Mamdani, “Politics and class formation in Uganda, Heineman, London, 1976; Colin Leys, “Underdevelopment in Kenya: The political Economy of Neo-colonialism”, University of California Press, Berkely and Los Angeles, 1974; Issa G. Shiuji, Class struggle in Tanzania, Heineman, London, 1976

17. Eskor Toyo, PRP: “Ideology and Revolution” in Asikpo-Essien-Ibok (ed.) Political Repression and Assassination: A tribute to Late Dr. Bala Muhammadu”, Research Unit Governor’s Office Kano State, 1983 Pg. 94

18. See paper by S. Bello and A. Temu, Problems of Socialism in Africa; S. Bako, the case of PRP petty-bourgeoisie socialism; and an in term reply by Alkassim Abba et al in Marx’s conference. Then see further response to the in term reply by S. Bello, “inherent limitations of petty-bourgeoisie political analysis.

19. See Alkassim et al interim reply opt-cit Pg. 1

20. See, for instance, Duverger M. Political parties, Methuen and Co. Ltd., London, 1964

21. Journal of African Marxism, Issue 3, Jan. 1983, Pg. 3-4

22. See for instance K.W.J. Post and M. Vickers, structure and conflict in Nigeria

23. Lifted from A. D. Yahaya, The Native Authority System in Northern Nigeria, ABU, 1980, Appendix V.

24. For an examination of the regional character of the rest political parties, see Sklar, R.L. Nigerian political parties, Princeton University press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1963

25. See Nnoli, Opt. Cit, Pg. 164

26. See post and Vicker, Opt. cit Pg. 183

27. See post and Vicker, Opt. cit

28. Terisa Turner, in her article ‘Multinational corporations and the Instability of the Nigerian state’ RAPC, No.5, 1981 emphasised the significance of class contradictions in the politics of Nigeria. In her analysis of 1975 core, she attributed it to intra-class conflicts between the bureaucratic bourgeoisie and those in the commercial sector.

29. See for example, “Socialist Forum” A Marxist Journal for social change, July, 1983

30. See section 202 (3) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979

31. See Oyeleye Oyediran “Voting behaviour” in Oyeleye Oyediran (ed.). The Nigerian 1979 elections, MacMillan Press, Nigeria, 1981, Pgs. 103-110; Alsosce Dr. R. Moten, “Continuity and Change”, the case of 1983 general elections (unpublished paper).