Most political parties in Nigeria face an existential crisis. If the electoral management body applied both the spirit and letter of the constitution and the law, many would already have been deregistered.
Why are these parties in turmoil?
In some cases, leaders elected at conventions refuse to vacate office after their tenures expire. Some parties still exist within the personal portfolios of their founders. Others are suffering self-inflicted crises, while some are externally manipulated.
Are there hidden issues behind these crises, or are they struggles for power among competing interests and factions? Are unseen forces driving the turmoil, or are some parties merely waiting in the wings for chaos to erupt so they can profit from it? I am not certain that some founders fully understood the functions of political parties before applying for registration.
The same may be true of those who joined after the founders departed. It is also possible that some parties were established on quicksand—created for transactional reasons rather than noble causes.
What parties are supposed to do
The Report of the Electoral Reform Committee (2008) listed core party functions: canvassing for votes, aggregating interests and opinions, linking the government with the governed, broadening political participation, educating and mobilising the populace, setting societal goals and values, and nominating and recruiting individuals for public office.
It also noted that the 1999 Constitution prescribes parties as the only platform for contesting elections; parties must be national in outlook, elect their leaders democratically, and, at a minimum, adhere to Chapter II of the constitution.
Furthermore, party programmes should be clearly articulated in manifestos and parties must ensure financial accountability and avoid armed groups for political purposes, such as thuggery during elections. Despite these ideals, memoranda and testimonies submitted during public hearings of the Electoral Reform Committee suggest that parties often fail to elect their leaders democratically, resorting instead to “consensus candidates” secured through coercion and corrupt practices.
Many lack clear manifestos or ideologies that distinguish their visions for governance, the economy, and public service. They frequently fail to maintain credible accounts or to submit election-finance reports to INEC on time. Some establish or hire armed groups—sometimes disguised as youth wings—to perpetrate violence. Unsurprisingly, the public is increasingly in favour of legal provisions that would allow independent candidates to run.
Lax formation rules, easy capture
Much of today’s crisis stems from a lax legal regime for party formation. With a few friends across the federation—and minimal help from a lawyer—anyone can establish a party. Paperwork is easily copied from existing parties with minor edits. Setting up an office in the Federal
The challenge of the enemy within is more dangerous and harder to manage. Some individuals belong to one party but are effectively moles for another
Capital Territory is straightforward, as the constitution does not require proof of ownership of the premises. A small group can therefore form an association, register it as a political party, and invite others to join. It becomes “their” party; they decide its structure and operations.
Tension arises when new entrants insist on genuine internal democracy and resist those who want to be “chairman for life.” Transactional politics has also infiltrated the system. Some leaders go into hibernation, waiting for the big parties to conclude their primaries, then position themselves to benefit from the outcomes.
Some aspirants are desperate to contest at any cost. In the larger parties, godfathers influence processes, prime loyalists, and manipulate primaries to return themselves or their protégés as candidates. Aggrieved hopefuls who believe they can win often look for “special-purpose vehicles”—available, but never free. A few lucky entrants do win, securing a fresh lease of life for both themselves and the party, thereby avoiding deregistration.
The Enemy Within
The challenge of the enemy within is more dangerous and harder to manage. Some individuals belong to one party but are effectively moles for another. Their goal is to undermine their nominal party and make their true home more attractive to voters.
Their actions and inactions can make it impossible for the party to field candidates or transact any genuine business with the electoral management body. Their actions and inactions leave the party in turmoil and may not recover from the self-inflicted wound.
Weak structures, strong personalities
Parties must be built and nurtured. With 8,809 electoral constituencies and 774 local governments and area councils, serious parties need structures at these levels to make a meaningful impact. Leaders are responsible for building and maintaining those structures.
Yet some leaders use platforms built and financed by others to contest elections, then walk away after victory or defeat—and re- turn four years later as if nothing happened. During their absence, others have financed, maintained, and nurtured the party at local, state, and national levels. The resentment that follows such intrusion—the attempt to “reap where you did not sow”—leaves the party bruised and in crisis.
Worse, some leaders believe they are bigger than the party. They adopt a messianic posture, insisting the party exists and is recognised only because of their charisma. Rather than build institutions, they make the party revolve around them, breeding resentment and needless conflict.
Hollowed-out offices, captured structures
Some parties maintain a token office in the state capital and a minimal presence in local governments and wards. In reality, their operations are run out of Government House, where they control the levers of power. Handlers there give instructions to party chairmen, some of whom are replaced at will and exercise no independent initiative.
Consequences for elections
This crisis will inevitably affect elections. Some parties will be unable to field candidates, and this will breed further conflict within their ranks. Some godfathers may become more brazen in their impunity, and their actions may degenerate into violence, undermining the electoral process.
What must change
We must begin building national parties that are not owned by individuals but are rooted in the people—owned by the people and controlled by the people. Such parties must be genuinely democratic and uphold internal democracy as a cardinal principle. They must exist in reality at the ward, local government, and state levels—not merely in the imagination and portfolios of founders and godfathers.
It is imperative to reform the narrative and the legal basis of party registration. It will be more prudent to build national parties anchored in the grassroots. The atomisation of parties and the over-liberalisation of the registration regime have not worked in our context and will not work. The godfathers and so-called founders of existing parties must loosen their stranglehold and allow the parties to breathe.
