GROWING
NIGERIA'S DEMOCRACY THROUGH VIABLE POLITICAL PARTIES
Introduction
There is no denying the fact that the contemporary world is
characterized by a sweeping democratic ferment. This has occurred in different
phases and across continents (see, Hyden, 1995; Hadenius, 1997; Isaac 1998).
Apparently, democratic changes in other parts of the world such as Europe and
America coupled with internal problems of governance inspired many African
countries in the direction of democratization as witnessed, for instance, in
Benin in the late 1980s and Nigeria in the 1990s. Although there is a tendency
to attribute the democratic ferment sweeping across Africa to external
pressures or developments within the international system, the determination
and resilience of Africans for democratic rule cannot be wished away (Saliu
2004:4). In other words, Africa’s increasing democratization profile is a
product of external factors much as it is a product of internal factors. This
increasing profile is amply demonstrated in Nigeria’s current democratic
experience, which, began in May 1999. But while the democratization wave was
blowing over the country, it was caught up in what has been described as the
victory and crises of democracy in Nigeria (Muhammad, 2006) – a trend that is
attributable to fragility of some democratic institutions. Democracy is no doubt,
a continuous process. It therefore follows that as the process deepens, there
must be concomitant growth in the institutions responsible for sustainable
democracy. Obviously, one set of institutions for democratic growth are the
political parties without which the majoritarian model of democracy would be
practically impossible. In Nigeria and Africa generally, before the coming of
Europeans, the whole idea of political party was an alien phenomenon. However, nationalist
pressures during colonial era quickened the pace of constitutional development,
which in turn stimulated the development of political parties (Sklar quoted in
Adele 2001:42). Thus, political parties in Nigeria have become, as elsewhere,
an established institution of democratic politics.
In discussing the nature of political parties in Nigeria,
Ujo (2000:18-42) attempted a classification. The first generation of parties according
to him consisted of the pre 1945 parties. These included the Nigerian national
Democratic Party (NNDP) and some other political associations such as the
Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM). According to him, many of them were more of
glorified interest groups since their concerns were to influence specific
policies of the colonial government. The second generation consists of those
that emerged between 1945 and end of the First Republic. These were the Northern
Peoples’ Congress (NPC), Action Group (AG), National Council of Nigerian
Citizens (NCNC), United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC) and Northern Elements
Progressive Union (NEPU). They were classified as nationalist parties by Ujo because
their intent was to wrestle power from the colonialist – a task that they
eventually succeeded in accomplishing. They succeeded in this period because
the colonial machinery was conceived to be the “out group” against the
“in-group” (Nigerians) thus, a high degree of mobilization of the citizenry to
end formal colonial rule was easy to achieve (Yaqub 2002:123-1240).
Unfortunately, intra and inter party rivalries characterized these parties
after independence leading to their degeneration into more or less ethnic
pressure groups – a trend which eventually led to the collapse of the First
Republic. The third generation of parties which Ujo (2000) identified were
parties of the Second Republic, 1979-1983 and they included the National Party
of Nigeria (NPN), Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), Nigerian Peoples’ Party (NPP), Peoples’
Redemtion Party (PRP), Great Nigeria Peoples’ Party (GNPP) and Nigeria Advance
Party (NAP). What characterised parties of this epoch is that in spite of the government’s
attempt to avoid their degeneration into regional parties as experienced in the
First Republic, most of the parties turned out to be reincarnates of the First
Republic parties. For instance, the NPN, UPN, NPP and PRP were adjudged to be
similar both in leadership and orientation to the NPC, AG, NCNC and NEPU
respectively. The fourth generation of parties was the Social Democratic Party
(SDP) and the National Republican Convention (NRC) of the aborted Third
Republic. Unlike the earlier parties, the SDP and NRC appeared to live above
troubled waters of ethnic chauvinism and religious bigotry to a large extent.
This may be explained partly by the constitutional requirements set for party
registration, which compelled moderation on the part of politicians and partly
because of centrality of the state to their creation. Thus, the trend of
support and outcome of the elections portrayed the parties as somewhat
nationally based (Akinterinwa 1997). Also included in the fourth generation
parties were the five parties registered during the regime of General Sani
Abacha – Congress for National Consensus (CNPP), United Nigeria Congress Party
(UNCP), Grassroots Democratic Movement (GDM), Democratic Party of Nigeria
(DPN), and the National Centre Party of Nigeria (NCPN) - which from all
indications were crafted to fulfill the personal ambition of a transmuting
General and; political parties of the current democratic administration (Fourth Republic).
Beyond the above classifications however, it must be stated
that as in other democracies, political parties in Nigeria are a core
institution of democratic politics. Indeed, the character and tendencies
exhibited by these parties, as shown by past experiences, often have
implications for democratic sustenance in the country. Against the background
of the forgoing, this paper examines the challenge of deepening Nigeria’s
democracy through viable political party institutions. What is the general
character of political parties in Nigeria? What challenge(s) does the nature of
political parties pose to democratic practice? To what extent can Nigerian
political parties strengthen the democratic fabric? These issues constitute
critical ingredients of concern in this work.
Political Parties and
Democracy: Theoretical Insight
Political party is one of the genuses of intermediary
groups in a political system. Others include interest groups and pressure
groups. Thus, the relationship between viable political party and democratic
governance is no doubt axiomatic. Political parties are the lubricant of
democracy and without which, democracy based on the western model cannot
function (Adele 2001:35). This is essentially because it provides a credible
means of harnessing the variety of public opinions essential in sustaining a
democratic society. While democracy rests on the informed and active
participation of the people, political party is a viable tool in this regard.
This perspective is shared by political scientists. As Anifowoshe (2004:59)
remarked:
Democracy exists where the principal leaders of a political
system are selected by competitive elections in which the bulk of the
population have the opportunity to participate. As a matter of fact, the condition
of the parties, in a political system, is the best possible evidence of the nature
of any democratic regime.
Implicit
in the above statement is that a party’s level of institutionalization,
cohesion and social base, determines the extent of its viability and the extent
to which it could be said to be performing its functions in a democracy. In
other words, viable political parties contribute to democratic growth much as
unviable ones may result in democratic regression. Although there are myriad of
definitions on what constitutes a political party, yet they all revolve around
electioneering and the control of government. For instance, political parties
has been conceived as an instrument for contesting elections for the purpose of
selecting candidates and party(ies) to exercise political power (Yaqub
2002:122). This definition is in consonance with that which sees political
party as an organization, which is principally, absolutely and actively
involved, in the electoral process, in a democracy, with the major intent of
winning political power and controlling the government (Onuoha 2003:137). The
import of these definitions is that the major goal of political party is to
capture and control governmental powers. This it does through participation in
electoral process in which it fields candidates to contest for various posts.
Yet, it must be stated that while the major goal of a political party is to
capture and maintain control over personnel and policies of government, such at
times may have to be done in coalition with other party(ies). This is
especially the case where electoral victory is not based on ‘first past the
post’ system or where a single party could not win the minimum electoral seats
necessary for it to constitute a government.
However, beyond fielding candidates for elections and
controlling governmental apparatuses, political parties also perform other
functions which on the one hand set them aside from other organizations such as
interest groups and more importantly on the other hand, makes them sine qua
non for democratic development. These include; the task of political
recruitment and training, education, socialization, breeding consensus,
providing alternative world views and political communication among others (see
Okoosi-simbine 2004:85-86; Yaqub 2002:112; Aina 2002:10-12, Onuoha 2003:137).
It is the extent to which parties are able to discharge these functions that
determine the extent of democratic growth in the country. Important in carrying
out the above functions is that parties especially in culturally variegated
societies such as Nigeria must eschew those intervening variables that are
likely to mar programmes and policies of the party such as salience of ethnic,
religious or other sectional interests. Where this is not avoided, the tendency
is that a party will find it considerably difficult in harnessing or mobilizing
mass support for democratic growth. The emphasis here is that parties are
formed not only to promote policies but also to secure social interests. It
therefore follows that parties must have broad social bases in order to be able
to aggregate interests rather than articulation of specific sectional ones.
Also central to democratic growth through the party system
is party institutionalization. That is, the process by which parties become
established and acquires value and enduring stability (Huttington, 1965:394).
Although the extent of party institutionalization varies with party systems the
world over, it is usually measured based on some factors such as party age,
count of splits and mergers, electoral stability, legislative stability and
leadership change (Janda, 1993:167). Of equal importance is party coherence,
which has been defined as the degree of congruence in the attitudes and
behaviour of party members’ (Janda 1980:118; 1993:173). There is no gainsaying
the fact that the degree of coherence among party members bears direct
relevance to party strength and stability. This is because a strong and
coherent party in terms of membership and structure is usually stronger and
coordinated both in articulating view and garnering electoral support than are
fragmented one. It is also the factor of coherence that enable parties to
effectively discharge the function of National integration which they are
expected to perform especially in plural societies.
It must be stressed that, while parties in the advanced
countries of Europe and America, are observed to have attained the status
described above, those in the developing countries tend to be a little far from
it. In other words, political parties in the developing countries cannot be
ranked on equal scale with those of the advanced countries in terms of
viability of the institution. Hence, it could be reasoned that the difference
between the two worlds accounts for the different levels of democratic growth
between them (e.g. Nigeria and USA). Although Nigeria has returned to
democratic practice since 1999, yet there is a growing concern over the
sustenance of its democracy. These concerns obviously owe their origin to the
nature of political parties and party politics or activities in the country.
Issues surrounding this dilemma are examined next but before this, description
of the character and general tendencies of current political parties is
essential.
Behaviour and Character of
Nigerian Political Parties
Essentially,
behaviour of political parties in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic is not too
fundamentally different from that of earlier Republics. Indeed, the character
and pattern of behaviour they exhibit owes much to their circumstance of origin
and operating environment. Prior to independence, political parties in Nigeria
emerged within the context of nationalist struggles for independence. The
common desire to put an end to colonial rule and achieve self government therefore
reduced the preponderant tendency of any segmental cleavage (Yaqub, 2002: 22).
The certainty and approach of independence however brought about a total change
in the operating context of the parties. Since new set of leaders are to emerge
from among Nigerians, party activities assumed a new dimension which till date
has continued to characterize Nigerian Political parties. Two matrices are
implicit in this view. First is that, there is an intense and ferocious
struggle for power among the political parties. This may be attributed to
centrality of political power in the country access to which determines access
to other resources. Consequently, competition becomes so intense that the
ruling party will always want to maintain its hold on power just as the other
parties in opposition are ready to wrestle power from the ruling party
irrespective of what it takes. Perhaps this trend equally, usually inform the
pattern of alignment and re alignment that takes place between parties in the
process of electoral competition such as between the Alliance for Democracy (AD)
and the All Peoples’ Party (APP) in the 1999 presidential election and AD-PDP
accord in the south west during the 2003 general elections. In the same vein,
the intense inter party rivalry also to a large extent accounts for party’s mobilization
of forces of identity such as ethnicity, religion and other cleavage issues in
order to gain electoral advantage and, other electoral fraud among others.
With regard to the second matrix, there
is within each party an intense struggle for relevance, regional hegemony and
exertion of overbearing influence on party structures and machineries among
party members. This tendency has been the bane of party politics since Nigeria’s
independence in 1960 (See, Okoosi-Simbine, 2005; Tyoden, 2002: 12 - 14; Osaghae,
1998: 120 - 121). Interestingly, the present Fourth Republic is not an
exemption as several occurrences points in this direction. For instance, the
tactical refusal to register some known members of the PDP including vice
president Atiku Abubakar, at various wards during the party’s recently
concluded membership re registration exercise and, the decision of some
stalwarts of the PDP (including the former chairman, Audu Ogbe) to float new
political associations, Movement for the Defence of Democracy (MDD) and Movement
for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD), with the intention of registering them
as political parties. Others include, personality clash between Jerry Useni and
Don Etiebet within the All Nigerian Peoples’ Party (ANPP) and Bisi Akande
versus Mojisola Akinfenwa in the AD (see, The Punch, August 12, 2003:
39; The Sun, September 12, 2003; Thisday, January 14, 2006:6; Sunday
Independent, January 1, 2006: A4 and Abatan 2006: B14).
What must be noted at this point is
that, while the need to capture power by all means and personal idiosyncrasies
of party stalwarts underlie parties’ behaviour in Nigeria, the situation has
nonetheless been compounded by a self-serving and pathological perception of
politics and democratic practice by the politicians. In this case, politics is
seen as a means of amassing wealth and power for personal advantage. Under such
a scenario, ‘playing by the rules becomes an uncomfortable restraint’ (Maduekwe,
2005) as the average politician responds only to his social, political and
economic impulses. Invariably therefore, political parties in Nigeria and of
course party activities are characterized by behavioural tendencies manifesting
in inter and intra party antagonisms, indiscipline and flagrant violation of
party rules; factionalism and lack of internal cohesion’ ideological emptiness
of parties and a dwindling hope of party institutionalization among others. All
these, indeed, constitutes critical issues and problems for sustainable
democracy.
Political Parties and
Sustainable Democracy in Nigeria: Issues and Problems
As noted earlier, political parties in Nigeria are a
product of specific environments, which often influence their structures,
functions, and operations. Nonetheless, they are expected, as elsewhere, to
serve as lubricating agent for sustainable democratic rule. Presently, however,
there is, as Anifowoshe (2004:57) noted, a growing public apprehension
concerning the future of the sustainability of Nigeria’s nascent democracy.
Anifowoshe noted further that the growing apprehension is predicated on the
nature and intensity of party competition, which had invariably engendered
tremendous bickering, political uncertainties and disorder in many parts of the
country. The point here is that party politics in Nigeria has not undergone any
genuine transformation that is capable of strengthening the democratic project.
Democracy is all about competition, bargaining and
compromise. In a liberal context, these are expected to be facilitated by the
institution of political party. However, it could be gleaned from the Nigerian
situation that political parties are usually more into ‘cat and mouse’ game.
This is because, both at the level of inter and intra party relations, the rules
of the game are often never allowed to play itself out. In the present
democratic experience for instance, while the ruling party, Peoples Democratic
Party (PDP), has remained weary and critical of any move or opinion expressed
by other parties, so also are the non-governing parties reigning invectives on
the PDP government at every available opportunity (Muhammad, 2006: 208). Even
at state level, inter party relations have been more confrontational among
party faithful leading, at times, to violent conflicts and wanton destruction
of lives and properties as witnessed in states such as Anambra, Kwara, Edo,
Ekiti, Rivers and Bornu (Human Rights Watch 2003; Sambo 2005). The confusion
and contradiction of party activities in Nigeria also plays itself out in the spate
and dimensions of intra party squabbles. For instance, among the leading
parties (PDP, ANPP and AD) there has been dissolution of party executives,
suspension of party stalwarts for anti-party activities, emergence of parallel
executives and deflection of party members among other manifestations of intra-party
crisis. One of the worst manifestations of such under the present
administration is best exemplified in the Anambra State saga where factions
resorted to the use of various means and strategies in their contestations for
control of power in the state. The crises which began to manifest since July
2003 saw a wanton display of anti-democratic tendencies including adoption of
the state governor, destruction of lives and properties and even, using instrumentality
of the police (Muhammad, 2006:207). In underscoring the profound confusion that
characterized Nigeria’s political terrain, Anifowoshe (2004:57) noted that:
From inception of the restoration of civil rule in the Fourth
Republic, the political scene has witnessed frequent discords, unresolved
political issues, recriminations, threats of impeachment of executives,
treacheries, flagrant breach of party rules, carpet-crossings, inter-communal
rivalries and resurgence of factional cleavages within parties, which have
continued to threaten the functioning of democracy in Nigeria.
In other words, courtesy of activities of the political
parties, Nigeria’s current democratic experience is not only characterized by
uncertainties but as well, trapped between democratic growth and regression.
All these have continued to dim the hope of sustainable democracy in Nigeria.
But it must be stated that current experiences with political parties in
Nigeria are not only peculiar to the Fourth Republic as it represents more of a
carryover from the past republics. This is because both the First and Second
Republics in particular were also characterized by series of anti-democratic
activities such as inter and intra party squabbles, political bigotry, party
indiscipline, cross-carpeting among others – a trend which ultimately led to the
collapse of the earlier republics.
From what has been discussed, it has been revealed that
essentially, parties in Nigeria have not had the opportunity of been
institutionalized and that may partly account for the current travails of party
politics in Nigeria. Prolonged years of military rule and constant manipulation
of the political process contributed immensely to this development. For
instance, political parties in the First Republic had their life terminated
following the coup of January 1966 while those of the Second Republic existed
for only about five years (1979-1983). The Third Republic was more of parties
dying at birth as none of them had a life span that extended beyond two years.
Although some parties of the present era may have transcended first phase of
the democratic era, 1999 - 2003, yet they are equally faced with the challenge
of institutionalization. As noted earlier in this work, party
institutionalization could be measured by factors such as party age, extent of
fractionalization, legislative stability and leadership change. However, the
extent of polarization, leadership crises, deflections and political vagrancy
that characterized the present crop of parties especially the leading PDP, ANPP
and AD tempts one to conclude that: They are far from institutionalization.
Added to this is the rate of dissent by party stalwarts who in their struggle
for ascendancy and relevance are now floating new political associations with the
intent of transforming into political parties. Emergence of the MDD and MRD championed
mostly by dissatisfied members of the PDP are a case in point in this regard (see The Punch, December 23, 2005:6; Saturday
Independent, December 10 2005: A3; Daily Trust November 21, 2005:2).
The import of this situation is that political parties in Nigeria may
eventually remain a ‘child of circumstance’ born strictly in response to the
political interests of its big wigs rather than advancement of democratic
ethos.
Yet another factor working at variance with democratic
growth in Nigeria could be located in the weak party structures and lack of
internal cohesion. Weak structures of the current political parties no doubt
inhibit the system from running itself. This is because, it strips the parties
of their autonomy defined in terms of ‘a party’s structural independence from
other institutions and organizations’ (Janda, 1980:91). Consequently, the
control of party machinery and structures is determined largely by the interest
of a domineering caucus at any point in time rather than established rules.
Equally, there is no denying the fact that Nigerian political parties are not
internally cohesive. On the one hand, this may be explained by the fact that
these parties are composed of strange bedfellows. Thus, interests of the
amalgamating parties usually influence trend of relations. In a situation of
divergence of interests therefore, conflict becomes an inevitable occurrence.
On the other hand, one may look at the short gestation period of the parties as
another factor that affects party cohesion. The point is that between 1998 and
1999 when these parties emerge, there was little or no time for the politicians
to stay together and harmonize their differences, ideas and thoughts before
going for elections. As former President Sheu Shagari had observed, the parties
were created in matter of weeks and prepared for election in matter of days
(quoted in Tyoden, 2002). This factor partly explains the series of intra-party
rivalries and carpet-crossing that later characterized party activities.
But a more fundamental problem, which inhibits party
cohesion, institutionalization and of course, deepening of democracy, lies in
the ideological emptiness of the parties. A front line politician, Chukwuemeka
Ezeife, underscored this fact by noting that:
From the beginning, we had wanted ideological parties. That
opportunity was ruined. We now go for winning, winning only. No more ideology.
We are playing survival game. Our preference for the use of ideology to unite
Nigerians and present them with clear democratic choice did not work (Quoted in
Aina 2002:7).
The above statement no doubt gives credence to the view
that Nigerian political parties lack a definite ideological base that could propell
a democratic society. According to Okoosi-Simbine (2005:24), parties and their
manifestoes need to espouse the ideology on which they plan to run the
government in order to give the electorate a clear picture of where the country
is heading to and to decide whether or not to work in that direction. However,
parties in Nigeria have never espoused any definite ideology or put up manifestoes
that present the citizens with a choice of direction. Underscoring this
ascertion, Okoosi-Simbine (2005:22) noted that:
An overview of the manifestoes of political parties in
Nigeria shows that their objectives and strategies are not radically different
from one another in their planks and are all virtually addressed to the same
issues. For instance, the APP and AD manifestoes are almost a carbon copy of
each other with the only difference discernible in them being the emphasis that
they give to the programmes articulated, or in a few cases, the strategies for
carrying out the objectives.
In this
context, it is not likely that any party will be able to proffer an alternative
worldview for the electorate, which is essential in the deepening of democratic
practice. More importantly, due to lack of a clear-cut ideology, many
politicians behave like political bats changing party affiliation in response
to the political fortune of their group (Aina 2002:19).
In sum, Nigeria’s current democratic experience is caught
up in the dilemma of democratic renewal and regression. This flows from the
series of occurrences which revolves around viability of the current political
parties. While it is true that political parties are like piston in the engine
of democratic practice, the extent to which they acquire value and stability,
party cohesiveness and development of a coherent political doctrine are vital
ingredients that make them viable element in democratic growth and sustenance.
Recommendations and
Conclusion
This paper has discussed the interplay between political
parties and the sustenance of democracy. Findings reveal that vibrant political
parties lie at the heart of democratic growth. In other words, the more viable
the political parties are, the more democracy is strengthened. In Nigeria
however, there are ominous challenges, which confront Nigerian political
parties vis-à-vis democratic strengthening. Findings reveal that political
parties in Nigeria are yet constrained in discharging those responsibilities
which, place parties at the heart of democratic sustenance. As revealed in the
text, this reason is not far fetched from the peculiar nature of politics and
politicians in the country. Against this background, this paper recommends that
there is need for politicians to exercise restraint in the way politics is
played and allow party structures to develop according to the established
rules. This would help achieve internal cohesion and ensure party discipline.
Equally, genuine political will to restructure the political terrain is
necessary on the part of policy makers while actors must be willing and ready
to make sacrifices and compromise in the course of politicking. Where these are
achieved, it is expected that political parties in Nigeria will then be
properly positioned to champion the course of democratic growth.
References
Abatan, T. (2006), ‘AD: Limping Along in Disunity’. Sunday
Independent. Lagos, January 1.
Adele, B. J. (2001), Political Parties and Democracy in
Nigeria. Lagos. Ijede Commercial Enterprises
Aina, A. D. (2002), Party Politics in Nigeria Under
Obasanjo Administration. Monograph Series No. 1, Department of Political
Science and Sociology, Babcock University, Illisha Remo, Nigeria.
Akinterinwa, B. (1997), ‘The 1993 Presidential Elections
Imbroglio’ in Diamond, Larry, Kirk-Greene, Anthony, A. and Oyediran, Oyeleye
(eds.) Transition without End: Nigerian Politics and Civil Society Under
Babangida. Ibadan, Nigeria: Vantage Publishers, pp. 278-306.
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, pp. 55 – 78.
Coleman, J.S. (1971), Nigeria: Background to
Nationalism. Berkley: University of California Press.
Hadenius, A. (1997), ‘Victory and Crisis: Introduction’ in
Hedenius, Axel (ed.) Democracy’s Victory and Its Crisis. London:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-12.
Human Rights Watch (2003), Testing Democracy: Political
Violence in Nigeria. Online: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/nigeria/index.htm
(accessed on May 3, 2005).
Huttington, S. (1965), ‘Political Development and Political
Decay’. World Policies Vol. 17, pp. 386-430.
Hyden, G. (1995), ‘Conjectures and Democratization’ in
Olowu, Dele, Soromekun, Kayode and Williams, Adebayo (eds) Governance and
Democratization in Nigeria. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd, pp. 49-64.
Isaac, J. C. (1998), Democracy in Dark Times. New
York: Cornell University Press.
Janda, K. (1980), Political Parties: A Cross-National
Survey. New York: The Free Press.
Janda, K. (1993), ‘Comparative Political Parties: Research
and Theory’ in Finifter, Ada W. (ed.) Political Science: The State of the
Discipline II. Washington DC: American Political Science Association, pp.
163-191.
Joseph, R. (1991), Prebendal Politics in
Nigeria: The Rise and Fall of the Second Republic.
Ibadan, Nigeria: UPL.
Maduekwe, O. (2005), Politics, Democracy and Intra Party
Crises in Nigeria
Muhammad, A.A. (2006), ‘Reflections on the Victory and
Crisis of Democracy’ in, Saliu H. A. et.al (eds.), Democracy and Development
in Nigeria, Vol. 1, Conceptual Issues and Democratic Practice. Lagos,
Nigeria: Concept Publications limited. Pp 194 – 215
Okoosi-Simbine, A.T. (2004), ‘The Impact of More Parties on
the Democratic Project’ in Saliu, Hassan A. (ed.) Nigeria Under Democratic
Rule (1999-2003), Vol. 1, Ibadan: UPL, pp. 85-102.
Okoosi-Simbine, A.T. (2005), ‘Political Vagrancy and
Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria’ in Momoh, A. and Onu, G. (eds.), Elections
and Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria. Nigeria Political Science
Association, pp. 17-33.
Onuoha, B. (2003), ‘Political Parties and Elections: A
Critical Review of Party Manifestoes’ in, New Era Foundation with Support from
Ford Foundation, The Grassroots and Political Change in Nigeria. Lagos:
Joe-Tolalu Association, pp. 137-152.
Osaghae, E. E. (1998), The Crippled Giant: Nigeria Since
Independent. London: Hurst and Company
Saliu, H. A. (2004), ‘Dimensions of Democracy in Africa and
the March to the Fourth Republic in Nigeria’
in Saliu Hassan A. (ed.) Nigeria Under Democratic Rule (1999-2003), Vol.
I, Ibadan: UPL, pp. 3-9.
Sambo. Z.O. (2005), ‘Political Conflicts and Urban Violence
in Ilorin’ in Saliu, H.A. (ed.) Nigeria Under Democratic Rule (1999-2003)
Vol. II, Ibadan: UPL.
Tyoden, S. G. (2002), ‘Inter and Intra Party
Relations: Towards A More Stable Party System
in Nigeria’ The Constitution: A Journal of Constitutional Development. Vol. 3 No. 1 September Pp 1-23
Ujo, A. A. (2000), Understanding Political Parties in
Nigeria. Kaduna Nigeria: Klamidas Publishers
Williams, A. (1995), ‘The Fictionalization of Democratic
Struggles in Africa: The Nigerian Experience’ in Olowu, Dele, Soromekun, Kayode
and Williams, Adebayo (eds.) Governance and Democratization in Nigeria. Ibadan:
Spectrum Books Ltd, pp. 65-67.
Yaqub, Nuhu (2002), ‘Political Parties in the Transition
Process’ in Onuoha, Brown and Fadakinte, M.M. (eds.) Transition Policies in
Nigeria, 1970-1999. London: Malthouse Press Limited, pp. 118-134.
No comments:
Post a Comment