THE RADICAL LEFT IN ELECTORAL COMPETITION IN NIGERIA

THE RADICAL LEFT IN ELECTORAL COMPETITION IN NIGERIA

BY

M. M. YUSUF
Department of Political Science
Bayero University, Kano

INTRODUCTION:
What lessons have we documented and subjected to critical analysis about left politics in Nigeria since colonial period? A comprehensive history showing the diverse and sectarian tendencies of the left formations and their politics is yet to be placed for serious discourse by academics on Nigeria’s politics, economy and society.

A series of workshops on social movements in Nigeria, by former activists have not generated debates and responses from outside that small circle. Also the February, 2003 Third All-Nigeria Socialist Conference. Of course, a thorough scrutiny will reveal diverse programmes and strategies, many uncoordinated political activities on the same issues, including in participation in bourgeoisie electoral process.

A very serious limitation which any casual observer of the documents of this history since colonial period will note is that in Nigeria there has not been a lasting unity which keeps these political parties or movements together for long.

This constriction does not mean there had never been broad-based consultative alliances on pressing political problems. But these had never succeeded in solidifying and cementing a tradition of cooperation to achieve a common goal.

On electoral competition the numerous radical groups would not agree to join their agenda against their common enemy. These groups have found their differences from tradition of Marxian thinking on transition to socialism. Some radical groups, especially the smaller ones insisted that there is no peaceful way against the ruling-class. Following Lenin’s Polemics against Kautsxy they think that democracy is a class phenomenon so electoral competition is a bourgeoisie democracy, deviced by the bourgeoisie to remain in control. Others might seem working on Marxs declaration at the Hague conference of the First International where he noted that in some countries where there is strong representative institutions, the working-class could achieve their ends by peaceful means (Marx, K. 1976: 293)

The purpose of this paper is to put forward the idea that left formations and or individuals known as part of one of these formations also took the option of promoting working-class politics through electoral competition. This requires asking another question. That is, what does that bring for build up of the working-class politics in Nigeria? Again, if there are limitations what could be done?



FROM WHAT THEORITICAL PERSPECTIVE
The radical left is seen as a collection of socialist parties or movements, social democratic and populist parties, or of individuals who are patriotic and nationalist popularly identified with the interest of the working-class or nationalist project, generally defined by the common characteristics of nationalism, anti-imperialism and socialism. In light of radical academic contributions on political and economic changes in Nigeria, the orientation and mission of the Radical Left is to mobilise resources to defend the interest of the common man, the working-class and petty owners against colonial and neo-colonial domination and ultimately for socialism (Yusuf, B.U; 1979; Ola O. and Onimode, B.; 1975: Ehiedu E. G. I.; 1996).

With regard to politics of this Group this paper attempts to apply and develop Gramsci’s conceptualisation of state and working-class politics. Seeing through this theoretical lens, in modern capitalist society state exists as a class-plot. This looks like the Marxist-Leninist conception of the state as a coercive instrument of the bourgeoisie but it goes beyond that.

There are many views of what Gramsci meant by the state. There are common characteristics of these positions. These are:
i) State as a class instrument
ii) State as a primary instrument for the expansion of dominant class power
iii) State is a political machine to keep the subordinate groups weak and disorganised
iv) State encompasses civil society, each pulling the other to be in control (Gramsci, A. 1971:268)

The importance of state for Gramsci is rooted in politics. In this the state is an extension of the hegemonic apparatus of the ruling-class to perpetuate and expand their control of society in the context of class struggle. Hegemony in the more generic sense meant by Gramsci is the way in which a ruling group establishes and maintains its rule (Gramsci, 1971:267). This comes by consent, or by cultural and intellectual as well as political leadership achieved by a particular class, class fraction, stratum or social group, as part of a larger project of class rule or domination (Ibid:268).

Seen this way, hegemony is a relationship between the dominant and dominated classes. It involves attempts of the dominant class to use its moral, social, political and intellectual leadership to establish its view of the whole as all-inclusive and universal (Carnoy, M. 1984:70). This is not by use of only violence or the coercive power of the state apparatus, but in the acceptance by the dominated of a “conception of the world “which belongs to the dominant class (Fiori; 1970:238).

Thus, working-class politics is naturally counter-hegemonic. How do the changes come? How do the dominated classes overcome the hegemony of the dominant classes? For Marx and Lenin (Lenin, 1976:242), the state is the coercive arm of the dominant class, from Gramsci the state is also an instrument of the dominant class ideology, of the legitimation of the social need of the ruling-class. Thus, Gramsci would reason that the working-class could use every non-violent resources including the bourgeoisie way in order to counter the hegemony of the state.
Perhaps the “Left” formations are very weak with many sectarian divisions that it cannot control society; not capable of establishing an alternative proletarian hegemony. Hence, the dominant class has to be approached as a piece of the system of power in electoral contest.

It is in accordance with these positions that the argument goes that the “Left” in Nigeria could use electoral competition to defend the course of the working-class. This would probably mean the surrounding of the state apparatus with a counter hegemony, by developing working-class institutions and culture, norms and values of a new hegemony. These, working side by side with dominant class culture confronting the hegemony of the ruling-class. Gramsci called this a “war of position” (Carnoy, Op. cit: 72).

THE EMERGENCE OF LEFT PERTIES/MOVERMENTS
Between the world wars, communism was virtually unknown in Nigeria, and conditions were not favourable to its growth. Both objective and subjective conditions did not mature. However, by late 1930’s, boiling of a general political awakening were observed due to rising climate of war, rise of nationalism and most of all pro-soviet propaganda created an interest in communism in Nigeria (KPO, ND:8).

In 1945 T.A. Bankole, the president of the Trade Union Congress of Nigeria Visited the United Kingdom and while there made contacts with British communist party, other socialist groups, and opened channels of communication – exchange of information, books and pamphlets, etc – between Nigeria and those groups in Europe. When the T.U.C. affiliated itself to the World Federation of Trade Unions, communist dominated labour organisations in Eastern Europe, ideas on communism became widely spread in Nigeria (Ibid.)

This development received internal push by growth of workers and their Labour organisations. The “nationalist press of Dr. Azikiwe and even the University College, Ibadan became centres of propagation of communist ideas in Nigeria (Ibid).

The first and most important movement during this early history of formation of socialist organisations or movements was called the “League”. The building and strengthening of the movement had been in the hands of what might be called as the field workers, men of very moderate educational attainments. Although, the movement is called the “League”; but it is a party and communist in its ideology. In a circular from the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police Kano, it was called Communist Party of Nigeria (Ibid.).
From the colonial period through the end of the first Republic many worker-oriented and socialist political groups including United Working Peoples Party which was the Left arm of the Action Group, socialist Workers and Formers Party founded by Otegbeye, Nigerian Labour Party set up by Eskor Toyo and Imoudo, etc. had formed.

In the 1970s through the mid-80s Nigeria experienced rapid development with Nationalist-Oriented economic development. The military regimes of Obasanjo and Buhari programmes of industrialisation and agricultural development were to reduce control of foreign capital. Large-Scale farming and industrial projects which produced mass agrarian and industrial workers followed. Other sectors of the economy experienced similar boom. The universities have multiplied many times.

However, the Nigerian economy, then as now, is controlled by multinational corporate enterprises. The indigenisation Decree did not change the balance. The Federal Government of Nigeria depended on revenues from the oil foreign companies who exported Nigeria’s petroleum resources.

The expanding middle class categories were facing the risk of lack of political freedom to push their agenda. Industrial relations shifted from liberal to corporatist system. Whereas students had become strong political force, the bargaining space remained tight. The Military Governments did not want make compromise.

For these and many other reasons, the answer was underground Left formations and or Movements scattered every where across the country, especially in the universities, urban poor communities, theatre groups in the urban centres, rural co-operative societies, etc. There were so many to be accurately counted. In any way, they have underground names such as “the Iron-grinders”; “the socialist Forum”; the parrots; etc. etc.

There were stronger political groups with working class and socialist Orientation across the country. They were big political groups because they are called political parties, and or their influences reached many states in the Federation. Secondly, some of them were affiliated with the Third International. Thirdly, one of them has a branch in London called “workers Party of Nigeria”. These socialist formations, although they were operating underground but were identified as:
i) The Socialist Workers Party;
ii) The Socialist Workers and Peoples Party;
iii) The Labour Militant;
iv) The Bala Mohammed Memorial Committee;
v) The Socialist Congress of Nigeria and
vi) The mass line

The Left formations remained very active and militant during the early period of transition from state welfare to neo-liberal system. They had directed and or influenced the three phases of anti-SAP riots in Nigeria. Also many other anti-SAP actions by students and workers. The experience of “campaign for Democracy” and military dictatorship had perhaps caused exhaustion and forced them to reconsider their tactics. They continue to exist but they are in disarray.

The fruit of reconsideration of their tactics could be seen in the new political platform of various kinds of New Social Movements, in joining the bourgeoisie democratic machinery or the existing “Right” political parties. Subsequently, may be as a tactical manoeuvre there is no longer acceptance of Marxism as the foundation of their interpretation of reality, so there is no analysis of social, political and economic phenomena based on class struggle, or the class character of the state and the need for a new socialist order under a dictatorship of the working c lass.

LEFT PARTIES AND ELECTORAL COMPETITION
Between 1960 to date Nigeria experienced seven different General Elections viz. 1964; 1979; 1983; 1993; 1999; 2003; and 2007. The Nigerian state has been a subject of fierce contestation between different factions of the ruling class and some times other groups with alternative programmes.

The existence of “radical” parties or groups either with social democratic or socialist visions have always been important in the history of elections in Nigeria. But a single most important point is that inspite of the adoption by International Communist Movement of a policy of broad-based popular fronts to bring all supporters of democracy together, in Nigeria as noted above, there has not been a lasting unity which keeps these movements or political parties to achieve and retain a single political programme until it is no longer politically wise to remain together.

However, one cannot approach the history of Left formations in Nigeria without referring to their relationships through consultative meetings and alliances as well as broad-based and popular fronts to achieve a minimum political goal. But these had never succeeded in solidifying a tradition of cooperation to achieve a long-term common objective.

On electoral competition the numerous radical groups would not agree to join their agenda against their common enemy like the “Popular Front” which turned as “Popular Unity” in Chile in early 1970’s. It is not surprising as these parties and movements have diverse programmes and manifestoes which though have captured the roots of the social, political and economic problems of Nigeria but have different strategies and tactics to tackle these problems.

We can now perhaps suggest that these communist oriented parties tend to follow three basic models. One is typified by the Iron-grinders in Ilorin, and of course many such smaller movements in some university campuses. It is the model which I have no suitable name to capture their political tendency, except that I want characterise them as anarcho-syndicalists. This tendency did not become a movement in Nigeria but they could be identified by their radical exuberance, by tactical measures of only use of force and violence to attain a goal. In this case there should be no business to do with state and ruling class by electoral competition. The second model is exemplified by the Moscow-oriented socialist workers party (also called socialist party of workers, farmers and youth), based in Ibadan. This party eschew violence and accept mobilisation of the Nigerian people to “establish Peoples Democratic State under the leadership of the working class. It does not come out openly against front building or for broad-based alliance, but insist on state power supervised by broad masses of the people. This party does not seem to oppose electoral competition as its activists stated, though not in a party paper but in an academic text, that “the working people must insist on electing people among themselves to represent them in all organs of state power (Ola, O. and Bade, O. 1975:227). In the Third model, characterised by an organisational and ideological principles of Marxism-Leninism is typified by the Socialist Congress of Nigeria and the Mass Line. According to these, the ultimate objective is to liberate Nigeria from imperialist domination to be followed by socialist revolution and that these could be pursued in every possible way as determined by balance of class forces, including by transforming into a socialist party and contesting in elections.

There are two particularly noteworthy tendencies of radical politics which may be separated from the above three models. One of these is the position of socialist workers and peoples party. With Chinese-Oriented communism it claims “an opposition against capitalism and in defence of the interests of the working people…” (Fatogun, 1983: 71). The S.W.P.P. reasoned that differences should not be magnified out of proportion if is to defend the interest of the masses. (Ibid: 71). The party urged for defence of the land and the peasantry, of labour against capital and of democracy (Ibid: 73) which could be by forming a United Front of the Left Forces as well as Democratic Forces including mass organisations and even ruling-class political parties that cherish democracy. The party called the UNP and the PRP to be part of the front. Clearly seen the S.W.P.P. was first as electoral machine. Secondly, was the Bala Mohammed Memorial Committee. The B.M.M.C did not claim it is a socialist party. But of course was an electoral structure with a Nationalist thinking and programmes to change the economy of Nigeria from dependency and under-development. The B.M.M.C has no any illusion to bring any change by any means other than by election.

Thus, all the major socialist parties accepted both in principle and by action either directly or indirectly electoral competition to control state power or cause challenge to the ruling-class.

What political influence these parties have had in bourgeoisie electoral contest for power and in defence of workers interest is not clear. Their winning of seats in Various Parliamentary House is not encouraging. The socialist workers and farmers party for example was contesting every election up to the General election of 1979 but was not able to win any parliamentary election talkless of threatening the power of the state. In 1964 elections it obtained 2,206 out of 1,848,270 votes cast in December, 1964 (Cohen, R. 1974:175). Similarly, the Nigerian Labour which fielded Imoudu to contest Lagos North had to boycott distorted results in the 1964 polls (Ibid: 175). What about the Left in the PRP in 1979 – 1983 party politics? The party had indeed combined the political skills of all forces and strategic manoeuvre of the Left in particular to have won Governorship seat of Kano and Kaduna states and many seats in both National and some State Assemblies, but petty-bourgeoisie squabbles and the threats to marginalise the Left political forces had resulted in factions which killed the capacity of radical groups to pose any serious threat to the power and interest of the ruling-class. (Bako, S. 1983).

It is clearly necessary to understand that inspite of everything all the Left groups set aside their differences and struggled against the incursion of neo-liberal economy. The three major anti-SAP riots were evidence. Nevertheless, the economic and political aspects of Nigeria’s dependence took a different form when neo-liberal forces over-powered the radical groups.

The experience of the groups largely turned for electoral contest when democratic opening was won against the military dictatorship. But the rules of the competition became very top therefore many of them joined forces to form Nigeria Labour Party. Others into smaller social democratic parties. There was strong indication of the emergence of counter-hegemony when the Federal Government of Nigeria accused all the new parties of extremism and dissolved all of them and formed National Republican Convention and Social Democratic Party. In order to capture and neutralise the ideological fire of both the Rights and the Lefts, the Federal Government of Nigeria called these parties a “little to the right” and a “little to the Left” respectively.

The strategy for the power struggle involved a number of different positions. May be the more revolutionary radical groups regarded the SDP as a bourgeoisie reformist calculation. Others formed a Popular Democratic Forum and joined the SDP in bloc. Despite moving into the SDP it was not clear what revolutionary dynamic was reproduced. what we could see was that when the June 12, 1993 Election was annulled as the SDP presidential candidate was winning the ballot, these groups in the SDP and others who did not join ignored their differences and campaigned tirelessly against the annulment.

As events unfolded after annulment of June 12 elections, inspite of the divisions and contradictions within the Nigerian ruling classes the state played off and disorganised radical groups policy alternative such that by the time the PDP, ANPP and the rest of them were formed, the left had not collectively joined or formed any party to contest elections. Except those who joined the PDP, ANPP or AC on individual capacity.

From ‘practical’ point of view, then, it looks that there is one problem of the left in the politics. That is that neo-liberalism has produced democracy, with empowerment of the civil society and so the neo-liberal order has to be defended by all means. Perhaps that is why by the time of 1999 General Elections, “The Buhari Organisation Programme” was the only alternative policy, not from socialist, but nationalist perspective, but there is no any radical group, even for tactical reason that came out to support it (Yusuf, M. M. 2007).

THE CRISES OF LEFT ELECTORAL POLITICS
The roots of the Left in electoral contest with ruling class political parties go back to colonial period when in 1948 Imoudu, Coker and other radicals in the Nigeria Trade Union Movement decided to set up Labour Party to win Electoral support. (Cohen, R. 1975:174). From then, both electoral support and successes of the Left policies continues to grow at decreasing rate.

In general, what one may observe today is a decline of the Radical Left below what it were before. It is unable to profit from the new political space by capitalising on anti-neo-liberalism, within the context of neo-liberalism. From theoretical angle and the available diverse practices of Asian and Latin American countries, neo-liberal globalisation has two faces – one built on free market fundamentalism and the other on managed free market system (Stiglitz, 2006: 3). A Left project and political responses pushing for social market system may continue to reproduce the Left and new dimensions of Left politics.

Therefore, the question remains that does the Left participation in bourgeoisie electoral process creates the necessary condition which promotes working class politics. The fact is that the history of Nigeria’s Trade Union Movement still shows the influences of Left Organisations in working-class actions. But what is really happening today? Is it not that the politics of workers have come to an end as is now the claim among pro-globalist theorists.
Accepting the importance of electoral process as part of the strategy of creating condition of counter-hegemony means that the Left if at all it remains a live must organisationally regained more support and even notoriety to contest for power with other electoral forces.

Furthermore, if the Left remains in existence as organisationally political force, it is imperative to review their ideological and political position in light of very powerful coalition of neo-liberal forces so that they can clearly define what is to be achieved, the limits and the choices instead of individuals getting into parliaments and becoming more important than the party, the workers and the masses.

It needs pointing out again, that in a country of very illiberal ethnicity in every political engineering what would “The Left” do? Whatever should be the case, “The Left” must build opposite strategy, not the usual saying and practice of lets do what they are doing better in order to defeat them. Secondly, in the neo-liberal Nigeria, political parties have become cartels. What kind of party organisation are the Left going to run? The same kind of businessmen/ politicians type of political parties? As a reminder, Gramsci once noted that “there are periods of history in which social classes become detached from their political parties; the class no longer recognises the men who lead the parties as its expression (Carnoy, 1984: 78). From the time of NRC and SDP to present the observation made by Gramsci seems to characterise political parties in Nigeria. A big challenge against politics of the ruling-class is to form “new political parties” to contest against the parties of the ruling-classes. Or will there be a fear of not to be registered? This would not have mattered so much as building counter-hegemony is a process of series of counter tactics against state power to weaken its capacity to govern.

CONCLUSION
There are endless necessary conditions to bring out and structure the “Left” into electoral politics, but it will be difficult to draw definitive conclusions about when the overall impact of the electoral game will show positive. It may take long time. It may be temporary as seen by the failure of the experiment of Chile in 1973.

It may be possible to achieve something significant if properly thought out and managed within the organisational thinking of the parties or the groups directly or indirectly contesting elections.

REFERENCES
1. Ananaba, W. (1969). The Trade Union Movement in Nigeria. London, C. Hirst and Company

2. Carnoy, M. (1984). The State and Political Theory. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.

3. Cohen, R. (1974). Labour and Politics in Nigeria 1945 – 71. London, Heinemann.

4. Eddie, M. (1980). The Tragedy of the Nigerian Socialist Movement and Other Essays. Calabar, Centaur Press Limited.

5. Eddie, M. (1981). Human Progress and its Enemies: The Struggle for a More Human Social Order in Nigeria. Ibadan, ACID Books.

6. Ehiedu E.G.I. (1996). Radical Politics in Nigeria, 1945 – 1950: The significance of the Zikist Movement. Zaria, Ahmadu Bello University Press.

7. Eno, E.T. (1982). Realist, Trotskyites and Anarchist: An Open Letter to Alhaji Balarabe Musa. National PRP Secretariat.

8. Eskor, T. (n.d.). The Third Republic and the Working-Class: Reflections on the question of power.

9. Fatogun, A. (1983). “A United Front of Left and Democratic Forces”. In Asikpo, E. (ed) A Tribute to the Late Dr. Bala Mohammad. Kano, Research Unit Governor’s office.

10. Fiori, G. (1970). Antonio Gramsci. Life of a Revolutionary. London, New Left Books.

11. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from Prison Notebooks. London, Lawrence and Wishart.

12. Kano Provincial Office (n.d.). Communism in Nigeria.

13. Lenin, V.I. (1976). “The State and Revolution: The Marxist Theory of the State and the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution”. In selected Works, Volume 2.

14. Lenin, V.I. (1977). “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky”. In selected Works, Volume 3.
15. Marx, K. (1976) “The Hague Congress; Reporters Record of the Speech made at the meeting, held in Amsterdam on September 8, 1872. Selected Works, Volume 2

16. Ola, O. (1986). Towards a Socialist Political System for Nigeria: The Programme for the working people. Ibadan, Council for Public Education.

17. Sabo, B. (1987). “Nigerian Left-Wing Politics in 1990; Some Lessons from the P.R.P” In Stephen, O.O. (ed.) Alternative Political Futures for Nigeria. Lagos, NPSA

18. SPWFY (n.d.) The Tasks of the People’s Revolution in Nigeria: The Programme of Struggle

19. Stephen, G. (2003). “Gramsci, Modernity and globalisation”. International Gramsci Society Online Article

20. Tyoden, S.G. (1982). The dilemma of the Nigerian Left. Paper presented at a Seminar on the theme “Towards a Progressive Nigeria”, Bagauda Lake Hotel Kano, December 16 – 18 1982

21. Stiglitz, J. (2006). Globalization and its discontents; Making globalisation work. London. Penguin Books

22. Yusuf, B.U (1979). For the Liberation of Nigeria. London, New Beacon Books Ltd

23. Yusif, M.M. (2006). The Social Democratic Party: Reform or Revolution. Mimeo

24. Yusif, M.M. (2007). Buhari Organisation Programme is a paper Tiger. Mimeo