Text book on political parties and pressure groups full.

DEDICATION

TO

CHINWEOKE, CHIDUM, OBIAJULU, OBIANUJU, IFEANYI,
IKECHUKWU, NONSO, MUNACHIMSO and KAMSIYOCHUKWU.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A book like this depends greatly on the research materials available
and I am particularly grateful to the World Bank Research Library of
the University of Port Harcourt and the Uniport Graduate School
Library, where I spent many pleasant days wandering through its
incomparable collections.

I highly appreciate my dear wife, Chinweoke, for her indulgences,
sleepless nights and sacrifices, just to see me through. She tolerates
my shortcomings basically because I have chosen against so much
odds to lock myself indoors and write…one could not have asked for
a better family.

While accepting blames for all defects and omissions as may,
possibly, be contained on this text, I most warmly acknowledge the
following persons: Dr. Mrs O.P Anwuluorah, Mr. C.C Chukwujekwu,
Mr. Ifeanyi Ojukwu, Barr. Fab Onyisi, Rev. Fr. Ejike, Mr. P.K.C.
Onyejekwe, Mr. Greg Ezenne, Mr. Ajie Obiozor, Mr. C.M Nwose and
Mr. Uche Ekwonu.

Most especially, I am grateful to Law Egbomuche-Okeke esq, who
constantly encouraged me to write. My thanks go to all renowned
scholars, whose works assisted me in this publication. To those who
gave me the necessary support and inspiration to write this book, I
say thank you. To Prof. Kimse Okoko, Dr. Omenihu Nworgu, Dr.
Henry Alapiki and Dr. P.G. Odondiri whose works and articles, ignited
the academic spark in me, I am not ungrateful.

Finally, I acknowledge my parents for equipping me with the
instruments which kept me at this level, and most of all, to the glory of
Almighty God who maketh all things possible.

Ogbaji, Udochukwu A.O

February, 2009.

PREFACE

Nigeria's political tranquility has been disturbed and destroyed.
Before a decade now, Nigeria has not seen stable governance
groomed within peace; a sustained peaceful environment needed to
root political vision and the building of democracy. The Niger Delta
Region, which long epitomized a peaceful country in the sub-region is
today one of the few ethnic regions where peaceful settlement than
armoury exchanges characterizes the focus of the true leaders of this
country.

A look into the history of the Niger Delta region, together tied a vision
to happily throw out the cloak of colonialism, have not been spared of
the particles-bond of true federalism. Rather, they are countries,
which over the years have struggled woefully to put our nationalism to
the test of global ridiculing.The Bello's, Azikiwe‘s, Awolowo's and
Boro's were themselves heroes in their own rights. However, such
individuals again stand to be blamed may be for their failure to
adhere and build sustainable nationalism among their citizens but
rather manipulated the system to sustain their presidencies.
Considering that such leaders have had strong experiences of
democracy should have set the path for the bright future of this
country. What they failed to do (giving that time may not have
favoured some) left the indelible struggle of some of these states.

The nightmare, name-calling and the monster in oil-producing states,
to the good, have not appeared as religious or ethnic implied
struggles. The only exception but not deeply highlighted is that of the

political scene of the region– the Muslims in the north and the
Christians in the South. What has bedeviled and created a platform of
power struggle and not democratic development is ‗personal‘ and
sometimes mundane and myopic aspirations of few whose sole
desire is to become president or get access to huge sums of money
in the short time. With little money in hand, such unpatriotic power
hungry individuals gather few hungry citizens, seek foreign
assistance and commence their assault on democracy and peace but
not state. The noisy and monotonous rhyme of the dire bullets shows
no respire for the wailing of mothers and children, mercy on the sick
and the elderly. They become victims of greedy ambitions of ignorant
brats.

Nigeria appears to have been spared at least, from this kind of power
hungry souls over a period of time. After some period of military drills,
Nigerians are gradually building but fast, the fringes of what should
be good and sustainable democracy in the country. Since 1999, when
the country was ushered into democratic governance, Nigeria has
had the chance to change presidents through the ballot for the first
time. This is no mean achievement considering the fact that this has
never happened in the history of the country. Secondly, such a
wonderful period of democratic learning is taking place and
surrounded by neighbours in the West African Sub-region whose
countries are experiencing political struggles and turmoil and a
possible spill over. As witnessed in some other parts of Africa, cross
boarder fighting have the tendency to spill over neighbouring
countries. Thirdly, this democratic feat will certainly become a lesson

for countries nearby to reassess their noble books of peace and seek
the path of dialogue using Nigeria as a measure of capability.

In making the exemplary efforts in seating democracy in Nigeria,
evidences of minor circumstances; views, different ideological
leanings, political language, perceptions, etc are germinating. By
democracy, certain ingredients which should have been cooked so
well to dress the path of Nigeria's effort are simply becoming the very
iota of differences delivered in explosive thoughts, unearthing the
atmosphere which is in them the hovering threats to the peace in
Nigeria.

These threats, which may be perceived as minor or insignificant in
proportion in causing an abrupt cessation to democratic efforts, need
a second thought. For scientific prove an atom is required even if
small, to set forward compound.

Political tension characterized the debate of issues rather than
‗peaceful dialogue‘ among the most competitive political parties gives
the impression that things are discussed on affiliations and not
credibility. In the party bloc, PDP and minority parties do not seem to
click together. Differences in views pertained to programs are
discerned from extreme ends. The despairing arguments are positive
and encouragement from PDP members and media coordinators
while the other parties frown‘s deeply about the kind of analysis and
abuses inherent in PDP.

However, the growing level of poverty in this country is another great
threat to democracy. One may not be expected to go voting in
hunger. Neither shall we appreciate the fact that Nigerians will go
toiling all day only to get what is scarcely enough to feed oneself and
not the small size families in the country today. Poverty heightens
frustration and supplants disappointment, hatred and annoyance in
the minds of people who hope to see change. It drives children from
school into indulging in criminal activities, developing wickedness and
child‘s interests in possessing armoury (among boys) to perpetuate
criminal activities and terrorize communities. Poverty pushes young
females into the hands social decay and childbearing. Poverty
develops the test of disapproving democratic governance and rather
approving military junta as saviour of the plights of the suffering
masses. Poverty blinds achievements and gains of some sort and
builds intuitive anger for community desperadoes willing to die in
creating chaos. Such people see no hope in life. Not until government
draws up an inclusive (emphasis on self-help/assisted and
economically viable income generating projects) plan for
development efforts on democracy make no meaning to hungry and
angry souls.

At the threshold of such an enviable and peaceful democratic
dispensation, we all owe much credit to ourselves for the effort made.
It does not matter which party is in power and what achievement they
made. What matters is Nigeria‘s democracy. On the other hand, we
stand tall to embrace the blame of our failure to move forward and not
for one party or government. Nigerians have gone through

tumultuous moments of governance. Yet again, we have the chance
to build democracy and set the path the future knowing and proving
that in whatever state Nigerians are, we can demonstrate what
Azikiwe said, ―…the Blackman is capable of managing his own
affairs.‘ To do this, we need to see ourselves as Nigerians and not by
tribes. We need to put Nigeria first but hold firmly to our cultural
identities.

We should share and strife to make our democracy work. At the
moment, we are only building the fences today; and to think that
democracy has taken root is just talk. Even in advanced countries
where they boast of democracy, they learn each day. Meaning that,
democracy is a living process, a cyclical adventure for the good of
nationhood. We cannot afford to let such little threats hovering around
us, be what Shakespeare describes in his book ‗Macbeth‘, to be the
serpent under the innocent flowers.

This text in all dealt extensively on the origin of Nigerian Politics from
Independence to present, Issues in Nigerian Democratic Process,
Political Parties and Pressure Group Influences and their
contributions to Nigeria Democratic Process, Political Finance in
Nigeria, Public Opinion, Ethnicity in Nigerian Politics, and the
Concept of National Question and Resource Control in Nigeria. It will
of course serve as a valuable reading guide to students of Political
Parties and Pressure Groups in Nigeria and all other Nigerians
interested in Nigerian Government and Politics.

CHAPTER ONE

POLITICS: DEFINITIONS AND MEANING

It should be noted that politics derives from the Greek word ―polis” which
means city-state. To the Greeks, the polis was the most meaningful
community above the family level. The Great philosopher, Aristotle, began
his famous work, Politics, with the observation that ―man is by nature a
political animal‖. By this, he means that the essence of social existence is
politics and that two or more men interacting with one another are
invariably involved in a political relationship. Aristotle also means that very
few people prefer an isolated life to one that includes social
companionship. Men are engaged in politics as they try to define their
positions in society, as they struggle for scarce resources and as they try to
convince others to accept their point of view. Aristotle then concluded that
the only way to maximise one‘s individual capabilities and to attain the
highest form of social life was through political interaction with others in an
institutionalised setting, a setting designed to resolve social conflicts and to
set collective goals-the state.

What therefore is politics? A search through the political science literature
confounds the student with numerous definitions, starting that politics is the
process of making and execution of governmental decisions or policies; the
authoritative allocation of values; or who gets what, when and how; the
quest for power, order and justice; the art of influencing, manipulating and
controlling others; a process of resolution of conflicts in society and a
struggle among actors pursuing conflicting desires on public issues. Karl
Deutsch argues that any community larger than the family contains an

element of politics. While some writers are in support of a clear definition of
politics, others are opposed to it, claiming that the growth of the discipline
would be restricted if the scope were prematurely delineated.
Scattschneider is one of those who strongly support a clear definition of
politics. He reasons that:
“There is something strange about the feeling
of scholars that a definition is not necessary.
Inevitably, there is a lack of focus in the discipline
because it is difficult to see things that are undefined.
People who cannot define the object of their studies
do not know what they are looking for, and if they do
not know what they are looking for, how can they tell
when they have found it?”
To Abraham Kaplan, Easton, and Lasswell, politics is the authoritative
allocation of values as influence by the shaping, distribution and exercise of
power. Wesby (1970) says that:…..where there is politics, it is said, there is
controversy, where there are issues there is politics. Where no controversy
exists, where no issues are being debated, politics does not exist. It should
be noted that politics is not only about controversies and the mere
discussion of issues. Politics is more positive and concrete than this.
However, when politics is seen as a process, it becomes easier to
appreciate its importance since it is through such process that values;
material or symbolic, are aggregated, allocated and ultimately acquired.
Everyone, or every group therefore, strives to maximise the acquisition of
these values which as has been pointed out, are relatively fewer in
comparison with a great many competitors. What this triggers off is
competition in which every competitor attempts to exert as much power as
he possibly can muster.

It is in this regard that the definition of politics as ―struggle for power‖,
Morgenthau (1985), seems to have some meaning, but this seeming
relevance and meaning should not be stretched too far. This caution
appears necessary at this point, in the light of a more broad definition of
politics. This conceptualizes politics not only in terms of the distribution of
existing values but also brings into focus the whole issue of planning and
creation of values in accordance with the desires of the decision makers.
For Laski (1961), ―politics concerns itself with the life of men in relation to
organized state,‖ while Sidwick (1929) sees politics as……concerning
primarily with the constructing on the basis of certain psychological
premises the system of relations which ought to be established among the
persons governing and between them and the governed, in a society
composed of civilised men.

The highest point of the above definition is the relationship between the
government and the governed. Politics as already mentioned is a process
which has it, varied activities reflected in negotiation, arguments,
discussions, application of force, persuasion, by which means an issue is
agitated or settled. What is quite clear in this explanation is the fact that
politics is not basically conflicts all the time, there is consensus, leading to,
resolution. The political system may become heated with demands for the
allocation of certain values, or stressed by reason of non-performance by
the system, tending in some serious cases towards system breakdown and
legitimacy crisis. However, if some of the major demands, concerns or
areas of conflicts are attended to, the danger of regime collapse, can be
averted. This would not go to mean that all demands are to be totally met,

only those that the system can accommodate at a particular time and in
relation to other competing demands, will be processed and thus,
authoritatively allocated. It is in this respect that politics is accepted as ―the
art of the possible‖.

The problematic of politics since ancient time has been its meaning. The
question, what is politics?, has continued to be a recurring decimal in
political enquiry and analysis. There exist no text any where, that has single
handedly supplied the answer to the question. Every such text has been a
contribution to the clearer and proper understanding of politics. The present
attempt here falls short of providing this one capsule answer to a notty
question as the one we are grappling with presently. Instead of defining
one word, ―politics‖ one has to contend with the definition of such words as
―authoritative‖, ―allocation‖, ―values‖, and ―society‖.

According to E, Nwabuzor and M. Mueller: politics consists of all social
intersections and dispositions which are directly/indirectly aimed at or
actually succeed in obtaining binding decisions about who have desired
resources (or who do not), and when and how these are obtained, in any
enduring social system. The authors further contend that politics is involved
whenever there is struggle over the distribution of scarce resources by
decision makers in any social group. The social group may be a family, a
club, public corporation, an army or the State apparatus of any given
country. The definition by Nwabuzor and Mueller is largely a synthesis of
those by Dahl, Easton and Lasswell. There is an acknowledgement of the
fact that those things which the citizens of a country value are scarce
relative to demand for them. Therefore, in order to guard against anarchy

and perpetual deprivation of the powerless by the powerful, there must be a
way of authoritatively allocating the values for the entire society. This
implies that at any given point in time, some citizens may be indulged while
others are deprived. But the decisions must be regarded as binding by both
categories of citizens whose fortunes may be reversed in subsequent
allocations.

The authoritative allocation of values presupposes the fact that politics is
characterized by conflict. Hence politics takes place whenevr conflict exists
about goals and the method of achieving them. The process of solving
conflicts at home, in school or at a national level is a political process. This
forms the basis of our discussions in subsequent chapters. I took time to
analyse the concept of politics so that a student of political parties and
pressure group in Nigeria will understand the background of politics before
knowing what political parties and pressure groups are. This, I believe will
make for a proper understanding of both concepts as the title of this book
states.

Appadorai asserts that when a body of people is clearly organised as a unit
for purposes of government, it is said to be politically organised and may be
called a body politic or State. Therefore, politics is viewed as ―the science
concerned with the State and of the conditions essential to its existence
and development‖. In the words of Janet, it is ―that part of social science
which treats the foundations of the State and the principles of government‖.
It is worth mentioning that politics is the making of decisions by public
means in contrast to the making of personal decisions privately by
individuals. There are also some definitions which identifies politics with

government, that is, the activities that take place around the legally based
institutions of a society which makes legally binding decisions. Politics is
also taken by some as a synonym for ―legal government‖. The problems
posed by these definitions are that much as we have to know the precise
meaning of government, ―legal government‖ is tautological or superfluous
because it is legality that defines a government.

However, scholars like Marx Weber and Nnoli have contrary view.
According to them, social interaction is political to the extent that it occurs
within the framework of the state. Weber (1947) for example defines politics
in terms of all those human activities that are directed towards, and indeed
reflect in the process of acquiring, using and maintaining governmental
power. From this perspective, politics represents the sum totality of all
these activities that are directed towards determining public policies and
the means of implementing such policies. Similarly, Nnoli (1986) defines
politics as ―all those activities which are directly or indirectly associated with
the seizure of state power, the consolidation of state power, and the use of
state power‖. It goes to say that both Nnoli and Weber pitched their
definitions on the macro level. Politics makes sense only when it is
examined within the context of the state and the sum total of all those
activities which revolve around the acquisition, consolidation and
manipulation of the state apparatuses.

Furthermore, the definition that equates politics with government is
unrealistically restrictive. It does not take cognisance of binding decisions
that are tatken in societies where formal governmental institutions do exist.
There is also a definition which identifies politics with ―power‖, ―authority‖,

or ―conflict‖. This definition posits that there is politics in conflict situations
or where power relationships are in existence. This lends credence to the
earlier assertion that the process of solving conflicts is a political process. It
is in the same vein that Max Weber, the German sociologist, defines
politics as ―striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of
power, either among States or among groups within a State‖.

One of the criticisms often levelled against the definition that equates
politics with power is that it is overly broad because power is exercised in
different groups, institutions or organizations. However, our interest is in
political power which has to be distinguished from other forms of power.
Finally, it is pertinent to stress that the different definitions examined here
are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they are mutually reinforcing. But one
cannot but espouse Easton‘s definition which equates politics with the
authoritative allocation of values for the society. Its utility transcends socio-
cultural boundaries.

The Greek concept of politics more accurately refers to a process by which
men debate matters concerning the „polis‟ that is, the political community,
and take actions in an attempt to realize the public interest or the common
good. Thus, politics is seen as a controversy, a process of resolution of
conflict through discussion, bergaining and compromise.

The most important factor leading to the development of knowledge in any
field of study is agreement among its members about the content of that
field. In other words, the scholars in the field must agree on a fairly clear-
out definition of what they are studying. But, as noted by the English

historian, Morse Stephens, after teaching in the United States for two years
reported that ―he had not been able to find anyone who can tell him
precisely what political science was.

While there has been a wide range of definitions, most of them can be
classified as being one of two types- the Classicists/Institutionalists identify
politics with government, ―legal government‖ or the ―state‖, while others, the
behaviouralists, revolve around the notion of ―power‖ ―authority‖, and or
―conflict‖. Alfred de Grazia says that ―politics‖ or the political includes the
events that happen around the decision-making centres of government.
Charles Hyman claims that legal government is the subject matter of
politics.

William Bluhm, a political scientist explains: ―Reduced to its universal
elements, then, politics is a social process characterised by activity
involving rivalry and cooperation in the exercise of power and culminating
in the making of decisions for a group. The appeal of the definition flows
out of its apparent flexibility or wide scope. Politics is found wherever power
relationships or conflict situations exists, which means that the political
scientist can legitimately study the politics of a labour union or corporation,
religious organisations, as well as what goes on in the legislature or
administrative agency. The emphasis of this kind of definition is a type of
activity or behaviour rather than a particular kind of institution. There is a
practical difference between a definitionbased on government, and one
based on politics.

However, this goes to say that the Eastonian definition of politics as the
―authoritative allocation of values for a society‖, is considered useful by
political scientists. It emphasizes political activity rather than institution. The
authoritative allocation of values, is, Easton argues, the kind of activity we
should be interested in. The first assumption is that in every society, values
are desired, that is, people have different interest or objectives, and these
must be allocated; or distributed by someone or something.

In a sense, this is a power and conflict situation. Every society has different
political systems allocating values authoritatively. Easton posits: ―a policy is
authoritative when the people to whom it is intended to apply or who are
affected by it consider that they must or ought to obey it‖. In other words, it
is considered binding. To most scholars, therefore, the behaviouralist
approach to the definition is more comprehensive. Politics is considered as
the activities and process that take place in the political realm.

Most contemporary political scientists question the usefulness of any
attempt to define politics on the grounds that there is no final solution to a
problem of definition, as reflected in many existing definition of politics. On
this issue, a known political scientist, Frank Goodnow, wrote that: “Such an
attempt to define politics is not only dangerous but even if successfully
made, it is not in my opinion sufficiently fruitful of practical results to justify
the expenditure of thought and time necessary to secure the desired end”.
While there is no best definition of politics, most political scientists agree
that politics has something to do with power, influence and authority, which
are the central organising concepts of the study of politics.

WHY DO WE STUDY POLITICS?
At this point, it is very clear that politics, whether we refer to it as a dirty
game or a clean one, an evil act or a good one or even if we see it as a
necessity is an act we cannot avoid. It is all around us! Infact, our protests
could suggest a political form or behaviour that makes us participants in
politics. Instead of running away from it, one should study to properly grasp
the subject of politics and analyse the options the system presents him
with. No meaningful choice can emanate from total ignorance of other
alternatives. It therefore requires interest and proper knowledge of
available alternatives and their relative degree and or ability to satisfy the
needs for which values are required to be authoritatively allocated. The
following reasons make the study of politics necessary:

(i) The study of politics helps an individual irrespective of his place in
the society to be able to make the best possible choices among
several attractive alternatives.
(ii) It affords an individual also to come to better grips of politics and
several political issues of the day, and so may not be easily tricked
into doing what he would ordinarily not have done. It helps to
satisfy ones curiousity.
(iii) A proper knowledge and understanding of politics encourages the
cultivation of a critical mind which is necessary in dealing with the
many complexities of politics.
(iv) Since we cannot run away from politics, it becomes necessary, if
not imperative, to devote time to study and analyse it. This will
make one make sense out of the world around him.

REFERENCES

Alan .C. Isaak (1975): Scope and Methods of Political Science,
(revised edition) Illinois: Dorsey Press, p.13

Alapiki, Henry (2000): Politics and Governance in Nigeria, corporate
impressions, Owerri.

Alapiki, Henry (ed): The Nigerian Political Process, Emhai Publishers,
P.H. (2001)

Appadorai. A (1975): The Substance of Politics, Ibadan: Oxford
University Press. Deutsch Karl: Politics and Government, 2nd edition.
New Jersey: Houghton Miffein Company, Boston. (1975)

Nnoli, Okwudiba (1986): Introduction to Politics, Lagos: Longman
Publishers.

Nwabuzor, E and Mueller, M (1985): An Introduction to Political
Science for African Students, London: Macmillan publishers.

Nwaorgu, O.C (2002): Dimensions of Political Analysis, Springfield
Publishers.

Weber Max (1947): The Theory of Social and Economic
Organisation, translated by A.M Henderson and Calcott Parsons.
Glencoe, Ill, Free Press.

CHAPTER TWO

NIGERIAN POLITICS: A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Formation of political associations in Nigeria has been almost as old
as Nigeria. Those who have come together to form such associations
since the political entity called Nigeria came into being, do so for
various reasons.

As a people, we have never lacked names for political parties that
have emerged from associations. The Nigerian political landscape
is therefore cluttered with the tombs of many a political party in the
past.

To a keen observer of political intrigue and practice in Nigeria, it is not
a difficult conclusion that politicians generally form political parties for
the dominant purpose of contesting and winning elections rather than
as vehicles for coordinating development efforts on the basis of some
deep political and economic conviction-ideology.

The Nigerian news media is quick to celebrate every emerging
political gathering of old and "experienced" politicians with all manner
of superlatives, without a clinical analysis as to whether such
gatherings have a foundation for altruistic endurance. Such a
foundation is necessary because a selfish and hateful motivation for
any human cause is hardly a strong foundation to build upon for the
general good.

THE ORIGINS OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND ASSOCIATIONS.

The origins of political parties are closely associated with the
development of the modern state and representative democracy in
Western Europe and the United States. Parties evolved through the
struggle of contending groups to grasp control of the apparatus of
government. This struggle for power generally took place within
legislatures. Formed initially to advise monarchs, by the 17th and
18th centuries many legislative bodies had begun to claim
independent power bases and privileges of their own. An early model
of the modern party system developed in Britain in the 18th century,
shaped around the efforts of the Whig and Tory parties to control
government jobs and political influence. A party system also
developed in the United States in the decade following ratification of
the Constitution of the United States in 1788, putting members of the
Federalist Party against members of the Democratic-Republican
Party.

In both Britain and the United States, competition between political
parties undermined traditional conceptions of politics rooted in
classical and Christian notions of virtue and public service. According
to this tradition, political leaders should act according to a model of
virtue that involved placing the common good above the interests of a
fraction of the society. Leaders acting to benefit only themselves or a
narrow portion of the society were considered corrupt. However, party
competition required public figures to act upon a contrary set of

assumptions: (1) that politics ―naturally‖ involves conflict and division,
and (2) that its true goals are to secure the economic interests and
political influence of groups divided along lines of class, ethnicity,
race, and religion. From the vantage point of the 20th century, some
political scientists have concluded that party competition, far from
corrupting a society, measurably strengthens and integrates it by
providing a way to include and represent different groups and
interests.

During the 19th century, the broad extension of voting rights to adult
male citizens throughout Europe and the United States required
legislators to appeal to a much larger segment of national
populations. Political parties grew dramatically in size and began to
take the form of independent, popularly based organizations, no
longer serving merely the interests of a narrow elite. During the late
19th and early 20th centuries, arguably the period when political
parties in the United States reached the height of their influence,
party organizations played an important role in the lives of millions of
Americans. Political party ―machines‖ organized new communities out
of the vast waves of immigrants settling in America's largest cities.
These political machines offered urban Americans an array of
services, ranging from housing, food, and jobs to legal assistance
and language instruction. In return, they asked for votes. They also
expected loyalty from their victorious candidates, who were to remain
ever mindful of the party organization's role in delivering the votes.

However, let us go down memory lane and chronicle political
formations and coalitions in Nigeria. Nigeria has had so many political

associations and parties since becoming a nation that one would
naturally lose count. Some have died no sooner than they sprouted
up.

Before political independence in 1960, real political parties existed,
namely the Northern People's Congress (NPC)-North-dominated; the
Action Group (AG)-South-West-dominated; National Convention of
Nigerian Citizens -as it came to be called after 1960-(NCNC)-South-
East-dominated. Why do we see them as "real" political parties? It
was clear what each stood for and where clear differences existed
between them beyond mere ethnic preponderance.

The NPC, for instance was very conservative and not so inclined
towards a hurried exit of the British colonial masters. The AG was
more socialist in view with Marxist doctrinal beliefs that the state
should be paternalistic. The NCNC could be referred to as liberal,
with a moderate stance on issues, and may be this accounted for its
significant following in the South-West. Maybe strong fiscal
federalism with strong regions after independence strengthened the
political parties as each strove to produce results in the regions of
dominance. The regions had responsibilities like Health and
Education, leaving the center to take care of Finance, International
Relations, Customs, Immigration, and national security.

Although the NPC, NCNC, and AG could be referred to as strong
political parties with strong and discernible political beliefs in their
time, not long after political independence in 1960, splinter groups
started emerging within the ranks, not so much because of significant

ideological differences as clashes in personal ambitions of political
gladiators. So, in the South-West, the clash between Awolowo and
Akintola resulted in the formation of the United People's Party (UPP),
later re-named the Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP). In
the North, the Northern Element Progressive Union (NEPU) emerged
from the NPC.

Before the first legislative elections since political independence,
which took place in December 1964, two grand alliances were formed
between the now five political parties, namely, the Nigerian National
Alliance (NNA) consisting of the NPC and the NNDP; and the United
Progressive Grand Alliance (UPGA) consisting of the NCNC, AG, and
NEPU. The UPGA, which lost to the NNA.

After the military interregnums of 1966-1979 and 1984-1999 true
fiscal federalism became crippled, giving rise to the deformed copy
we have today. The political parties that have emerged (and died)
between 1979 and now have not stood up to the standard of true
political parties.

True political parties, like an individual person, must have a
recognizable personality and character (ideology). Looking at the
mushroom of political parties-so-called-we have in Nigeria today,
there should be no cause for celebration of another in the offing,
especially when the players are re-cycles from the existing parties
whose only reason for attempting to form new parties is to regain the
power and influence they have lost where they are coming from.

The time has come for Nigerian elite to refuse to be deceived by
political prostitution which is rampant among our politicians, who go
into politics only for themselves and by themselves. Political parties
should be seen as vehicles for national development where
disciplined commitment to good governance is an addiction for the
national good.

REFERENCES

  

CHAPTER THREE
POLITICAL PARTIES AND PARTY SYSTEMS
Political parties are organized groups of individuals seeking to seize
power of government in order to enjoy the benefits to be derived from
such control. They are also a regular and permanent organization of
a certain number of people concerned with either conquering power
or keeping it. They could be seen as any group, however loosely
organized seeking to elect governmental office holder under a given
label.

Political Parties could also be seen as organizations that mobilize
voters on behalf of a common set of interests, concerns, and goals. In
many nations, parties play a crucial role in the democratic process.
They formulate political and policy agendas, select candidates,
conduct election campaigns, and monitor the work of their elected
representatives. Political parties link citizens and the government,
providing a means by which people can have a voice in their
government.

CHARACTERISTIC OF POLITICAL PARTIES
The most important characteristics of political party are as
follows;
a. Membership: Any political party must have members. This
means they must have people that supports their ideologies
and party programmes in other words, they are referred to as
political party members.

b. Leadership: There must be leaders of that party. These
leaders see to the organization and administration of the party.
c. Goals and Objectives: Any party must have goals, aims and
objectives for its formation.
d. Ideology: There is need for a party to have its ideology. Any
party without philosophy or ideology is otherwise not a political
party.
e. Resources: There is need for funds, talents, electoral spread
and charismatic candidates. These will make the party to stand
firmly.
f. Constitution: There is need for a party to have its fundamental
laws guiding it. This will make the party to have a guiding
principle.
g. Manifesto: There must be programme of activities for the
people. This gives the people an idea of what the party have in
mind in promoting both the socio-political and economic affairs
of the people.

TYPES OF POLITICAL PARTIES
There are various classifications of political parties but it is
difficult to classify party systems according to one single criteria. The
most useful factors to take into account are:
i. The number of parties
ii. The relative strength of the parties
iii. The ideological differences between the parties
iv. The structure of the parties

Using all these criteria with varying degrees of emphasis, we could
arrive at the following classification.
a. Elite/Cadre party: This is a type of political party where the
membership is restricted to a particular group of people. It is not
thrown open to every interested person. For one to become a
member of the party, one must satisfy certain special
requirements or conditions. For instance, one must be
academically or economically notable. This means that, the
person must be very wealthy, highly educated or highly
influential in the society. The belief is that if one posses these
qualities, members will attract a lot of vote for the party during
election. Elite or cadre parties are less interested in the number
of members it has, but they are more interested in the quality of
their members. Their belief is that, a man with high repute,
integrity, influence and wealth attracts many votes than low
integrity, illiterate and poor people.
b. Mass Party: This type of party has open membership to any
person that wants to become a member. They do not have any
special qualification or condition necessary for ones
membership. They are less interested in the quality of their
members but on the quantity. They always look at winning as
many supporters as they could. Their belief is that if all their
members vote for them during election, they are surely going to
be the overall winner in that election.
c. Direct Party: A direct political party is that party where
members fill and sign membership forms themselves, pay their
monthly dues and attend meetings regularly. In this type of

political party, people are allowed to register as member of the
party as individuals. They do not need to go through any union
or any other group or body. In the 2nd Republic 1979 – 1983,
the parties then were all best classified as direct political
parties.
d. Indirect Party: A political party is indirect when membership is
through union, groups or component bodies. Parties may also
be made up of trade unions, groups or organizations. The
labour party in Britain, the socialist party in Soviet Union and
the Catholic Party in France are all examples of indirect political
parties.
e. Ideological or Missionary Party: This type of party has a very
strong ideology to pursue and defend. They are not much
interested in the quality of their members but their aim is to
make sure that the few who accepts to become their member
can keep to their party ideology. They sack any member who
does not keep their party ideology. The Communist Party of the
Soviet Union (CPSU) is a good example of the ideological
party.
f. Non Ideological or Broker Party: They do not have a strong
ideology to pursue or defend in that they are very much
interested in the quantity of their members. They are ready to
change their ideology if they feel that such will win more
membership for them. All the political parties since Nigerian
independence could best be described as Non-ideological or
Broker parties.

ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE OF POLITICAL PARTIES
Political parties mediate the relationship between citizens and their
government. In democracies with competitive party systems, political
parties pressure governments to respond to the needs and interests
of broad segments of the population. In more authoritarian
governments, parties offer a structure for directing and conditioning
the behavior of individual citizens.

Most political parties espouse democratic principles and
commitments. In practice, however, a combination of factors has
placed limits on parties as instruments of democratic participation. In
the 19th and early 20th centuries, for example, most parties took their
message to the people through the work of committed activists. The
introduction of new communications technologies has since reduced
the incentive of parties to mobilize and actively engage its members.
Even during the so-called ―golden age‖ of political parties, from the
middle of the 19th century until the outbreak of World War I in 1914,
most effective parties developed a rigid bureaucratic structure that
increasingly hampered participation of ordinary party supporters.
Power instead flowed to elites at the top of the party hierarchy.

Political parties employ different strategies for recruiting supporters.
―Externally mobilized‖ parties develop around leaders who lack power
within an existing government. These leaders compensate by
mobilizing and organizing a popular base of support from among
disaffected groups in society. External mobilization has typically
provided the origins of social-democratic, Socialist, Communist, and
Fascist parties in Europe.

―Internally mobilized‖ parties, by contrast, usually represent a
defensive strategy of counter-mobilization on the part of influential
government insiders. This strategy also involves efforts to recruit a
broad base of party members and supporters. Internally mobilized
parties seek to neutralize the organizational efforts of another party or
to gain that party's cooperation in the pursuit of goals, such as wars,
that require a broad foundation of support and sacrifice. Conservative
parties and Liberal parties in Europe have more often used a strategy
of counter-mobilization. In the late 1930s, the Democratic Party
sponsored social reform to fend off challenges from the Socialist,
Communist, and Progressive parties, and from populist leaders such
as Father Charles Coughlin, Francis Townsend, and Louisiana
Senator Huey Long.

However, modern political parties cannot survive without
organization, although at the earlier development of parties, it started
without organization. All over the world, the structure of each political
party, no matter whether it is direct or mixed derive from certain
elements which give it coherence. All parties are structured on basic
definite components. It is these components that give the party its
character. The basic components are:
a. The Caucus
b. The Branch
c. The Cell
d. The Militia

THE CAUCUS
This is an informal group in a party. They wield influence and
manipulate the happenings in the political party. In Nigeria, for
instance, there are some groups of people in a party that dictates
what happens in that party. Most times, they hold meetings after the
general meeting of all members and dictate or decide what policies or
principle to be adopted. These groups of people are best referred to
as ―The Caucus members‖.

However, the major characteristic of Caucus is its limited nature. It is
made up of small number and seeks no expansion. They do not really
admit members because they are a close group. One does not go
into it simply because he or she desire to do so. Membership is
achieved only by a kind of a tacit co-option or by formal nomination.
Their activities are at the peak during elections. They are responsible
for selecting or nominating candidates in times of election. The
caucus could also be regarded as an influence group or machine
group of a party.

However, we have the ―Caucus of notables‖ and the ―Caucus of
Experts‖. The caucus of notables includes the people with influence
and influence features. Only very rich and influential people fall under
this category. They are the king makers, otherwise known as ―the
political godfathers‖. They make the leaders and kings but they do not
want to be one. The caucus of experts, on the other and wields or
manipulate power on the basis of their intelligence or talents. Most

times, they are good in speech or they are powerful strategist or
planners. The technocrats and intellectuals fall under this group.

THE BRANCH
One major difference between the Branch and the Caucus is that the
branch is open while the caucus is not open. On the other hand, while
the caucus is not easily identifiable, the branch is easily identifiable
and called by names. The branch is also numerous while the caucus
is small. The branch is commonly found among the socialist parties
especially those whose membership is based on labour unions. They
see to the daily execution of the local activities of the party though
they are semi-autonomous unit of the party and they function within a
geographical unit.

THE CELL
According to Maurice Duverger, ―Branches‖ were a socialist
invention, while ―cells‖ are a communist invention. Both were
inventions of the Russians Communist Party and their adoption was
imposed on all communist party by the third international congress
after their resolution of 1924. In comparison, the cell is much smaller
group than either the branch or the caucus.

Unlike the Branch, the Cell has no geographical definition in terms of
membership. It is mostly a phenomenon of the work place i.e.
occupational organization. It is common in the Russia Communist

Party and has been difficult to reproduce cell in any other party
except in the communist party.

The cell offers political education to the members of a party and
discusses the party‘s activities from the secretariat or the directives
from the party. If one is not a member of the party or cell, one cannot
understand their discussions. You need to belong to their party in
other to understand them clearly. The cell is historically an
organization that featured during the early part of the Russian
revolution when the Tsarist Regime made it impossible for any
revolutionary activities to be carried out. The party heads used the
―CELL‖ to communicate to the people who are members about what
is happening in the country by then.

However, the ―cell‖ is also used by the modern government in Russia
to spy against non-communist countries or to inform the government
in power about some secrets. This is the reason why the cell is made
up of very small number of people. If not, Secrets will not be well
protected.

THE MILITIA
The militia is peculiar to the fascist party of Italy and Spain. The
militia is a kind of private army used to coerce people into party
membership. They are also used in making people work towards a
given political action. The militia men are ranked like normal army
and they have similar terms with the army too.

Militia is peculiar to an economy that is generally depressed, like an
economy with the problem of inflations, unemployment and high
political instability. They wear uniforms and organize match-pasts.
They are always ready and trained to fight like the soldiers whenever
they are been commanded to do so by their leader.

POLITICAL PARTY SYSTEMS
Party system defines the formation, organization and structure of
political parties. It also defines the number of political parties that
operate in a political system. A political party system consists of all
the parties in a particular nation and the laws and customs that
govern their behavior. There are three types of party systems:
a. One party or Single party system
b. Two party system or West minister model
c. Multi-party system.

ONE PARTY SYSTEM
A one-party or single party system of government is a type of party
system in which only one party is legally recognized and permitted to
control the affairs of the state; and in which all efforts to form rival or
opposition party is considered as an act of treason. It could also be
defined as any political system where you have either one party or
unquestionable predominance of one party, in which all rival parties
are officially regarded as treason, and where the party is the only
legal one. In summary, one-party or single party system allows the
existence of one party within a given state.

A single-party system is also one in which one party nominates all
candidates for office. Thus there is no competition for elected offices.
The only choices left to voters are (1) to decide whether or not to vote
and (2) to vote ―yes‖ or ―no‖ for the designated candidate. Single-
party systems have characterized Communist Party governments and
other authoritarian regimes. They have become much less common
since Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) between 1989 and 1991. Surviving
Communist states, most notably China (Red China), North Korea,
The Fascist One-Party System of Spain, Portugal and Cuba, do
continue to enforce the rule of a single party. International financial
pressure has also reduced the number of single-party systems in
developing nations. Funding agencies such as the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development (also known as the World Bank)
often insist upon a competitive party system as a precondition for
granting loans or aid to these countries. Defenders of single-party
systems point out that they provide a way for nations to mobilize and
direct the talents and energies of every citizen toward a unified
mission or purpose. This advantage appeals to leaders of some
nations that possess limited human and material resources.
Moreover, single-party systems limit the political freedoms and
choices of citizens.

However, other countries that practice one party system includes
Ghana (Kwame Nkrumah Regime), Ethiopia, Libya, Saudi Arabia,
Algeria, Niger, Upper Volta, Ivory Coast and Guinea.

ADVANTAGES OF ONE PARTY SYSTEM
a. A one-party system allows for strong leadership either in one
person (as the Convention people‘s party of Ghana headed
by Nkrumah) or a collectivity of leaders.
b. One-party system has a strong ideology and doctrine to
pursue. Just like what Stallin, a Russian Communist said to
his followers: ―Every Political party represents a class. In
nations where several classes exist, several political parties
must also exist; but in soviet Russia only the working class
exists, and so only one party – the communist party – is
needed to represent it. Any other party could only oppose
the interests and welfare of the proletariat, and that of
course, would be counter-revolution and treason‖.
c. One-party System Seems to be called a programme party
because it does things according to a predetermined
programme or course of action, and tries to pursue the
programme to a conclusive reality.
d. One party system represents the dominant segment of the
society and as such gives the majority of the people the
power of governmental control and leadership. For instance,
in Ghana, when the National Liberation Movement, as a
party rose in opposition to Dr, Nkrumah and his Convention
People‘s Party, as the dominant party, in 1956, The National
Liberation Movement won only 27 Seats out of 104 seats.
This shows that one party system usually represents the
majority of the people in a given state.

e. One party system gives no room for disunity. It is integrative
and eschews tribalism.
f. It provides the necessary platform for political socialization
for the masses and a forum for political apprenticeship for
would-be leaders
g. The single party system is in line with African system of
government while the multiparty is alien, divisive and
sectional.
h. It gives room for stability of government, in that is makes the
society to be unique; whereas the two-party system makes
the society to be divided.

DISADVANTAGES OF ONE-PARTY SYSTEM
a. One party system leads to the silence or the persecution of
the opposition. It becomes practically impossible for any
minority group to voice out their views for fear of being
persecuted.
b. It eventually degenerates into regimentation and
dictatorship. The government does what the leaders of the
party wants it to do.
c. It makes the political power to reside with one leader or a
group of leaders for long because the system does not allow
the emergence of alternative leader.
d. The government of one party system is most times
irresponsible and does not render proper and transparent
accountability of their stewardship to the people.
e. Legitimacy and sovereignty do not reside with the people.

TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
To Austin Ranney, a Two-party system is one in which only two
parties regularly win substantial portion of the votes and public
offices, and in which the majority parties to some degree alternate in
having majority of both‖. From the above, we can understand that at
every election, in a two-party system, one party can have a
substantial lead over the other party by having more candidates
elected than the other.

The two party system does not imply that there are no other political
parties existing within the country; there may be other minor parties
which do nominate candidates and contest elections, but rarely, if
ever, win more than a tiny fraction of the votes or elected any
candidates.

In a two-party system, control of government power shifts between
two dominant parties. Two-party systems most frequently develop
when electoral victory requires only a simple plurality vote, that is, the
winner gets the most votes, but not necessarily a majority of votes. In
such a system, it makes sense for smaller parties to combine into
larger ones or to drop out altogether. Parliamentary governments in
which the legislators are elected by plurality voting to represent
distinct districts may develop party systems in which only two parties
hold significant numbers of seats, as in Great Britain, Newzealand,
United States, Australia and Canada. Advocates of two-party systems
believe they limit the dangers of excessive fragmentation and

government stalemate. However, in the United States, which
separates the powers and functions of government between
executive, legislative, and judicial branches, it is possible for one
party to control the legislature and the other to control the executive
branch. This frequently has led to political gridlock between the
Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Opponents of the two-
party system also believe that in time the two parties increasingly
tend to resemble each other and leave too many points of view out of
the political process. These factors may alienate voters and lead to
low turnout in elections.

However, in two party system, the party that forms the government is
that party that wins the largest number of seats of the legislature,
while the other party forms the opposition. In Britain, the two major
political parties are the conservative and the labour parties. Although
there is the existence of the liberal party as the third political party.
The liberal party represents a minor political party because it has
never won or become one of the two dominant political parties in the
parliamentary elections in Britain.
ADVANTAGES OF TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
1. The system makes for an efficient means for political education
since the electorate have the choice of alternative programme.
2. It is a system which fixes responsibility of government on a
continuing and recognizable group.
3. The system makes it certain that a particular party win the
majority in every elected body either singly or by coalition; and

therefore it increases the chances of stability and coherence in
government.
4. The two-party system tends to be more democratic because the
majority of the people is not only given the chance to project
their ideology but is has equally given the minority party the
chance to show its interests and express its news without fear
of molestation. There is room for the expression of views both
the majority and the minority parties.
5. The fear that people, through the election, can remove the
power of government from one party and place it in another
makes the ruling party to be more conscious of its
responsibilities to the people.
6. The two party system readily opens the minds of the people to
public affairs and makes them conscious and interested in their
public administration.
DISADVANTAGES OF TWO PARTY SYSTEM
1. The system tends to divide the society into two factions, one
faction being the opposer of the other faction and thereby
tending towards disunity.
2. It may degenerate into multiparty system whereby three or
several parties regularly share substantial portions of the
seats; and in which a single party rarely, if ever, wins a
majority of seats. (The Nigeria Federal Election of 1959
which led to the formation of a coalition government by three
parties due to the fact that a party was not able to command
the majority of seats is an example).

3. It sometimes degenerates into the imprisonment and killing
of members of rival parties. The western Regions election of
Nigeria in 1965 is a case in point; whereby the election
became a rivalry between the N.N.D.P and the A.G and
many innocent citizens were either killed or burnt alive as a
result.
4. It is more expensive to practice than a one party system.
5. The system slows down the rate of nation development.

MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM
A multi-party system can be defined as one in which three or several
parties regularly share. Substantial portions of the votes and public
offices, and in which a single party rarely, if ever, wins a majority of
either. The multi-party system is otherwise referred to as ―group-
system‖.

Multipartism is a characteristic of the democratic nations of Western
Europe and Scandinavia, Italy, France, Nigeria, Germany and India.
In each of these nations or states at least three and usually as many
as five or six parties regularly win a majority of the legislative seats to
be called ‗majority‘ parties. Rarely does a single party win a majority
of the legislative seats to be called ―majority‘ parties. Rarely does a
single party win a majority of the legislative seats and so the nation‘s
cabinet and ministers are composed of coalitions of several parties
rather than the representatives of any single party.

Multi-party systems are the most common type of party system.
Parliamentary governments based on proportional representation
often develop multi-party systems. In this type of electoral
arrangement, the number of legislative seats held by any party
depends on the proportion of votes they received in the most recent
election. When no party gains a majority of the legislative seats in a
parliamentary multi-party system, several parties may join forces to
form a coalition government. Advocates of multi-party systems point
out that they permit more points of view to be represented in
government and often provide stable, enduring systems of
government, as in most of contemporary Western Europe (where
every system, including Great Britain, has at least three and usually
five or six significant parties). Critics note, however, that multi-party
systems have sometimes contributed to fragmentation and political
instability, as in the Weimar Republic in Germany (1919-1933), the
Fourth Republic in France (1946-1958), and Italy after World War II.

In Nigeria, for example, as from 1954 to 1966 there were three
dominant political parties: The NCNC, the N.P.C., and the A.G and
some minor parties such as the N.E.P.U, the U.N.D.P and the
U.M.B.C. In 1959 federal election to the House of Representatives
the three dominant parties as well as the N.E.P.U, as a minority Party
presented candidates for the election to the House. The House of
Representatives consisted of 312 members then. In the election the
N.P.C won 142 seats: The NCNC, 89 seats: and the A.G, 73 seats
and the N.E.P.U won 8 seats. Three of the four parties that won seats
in the election united to form a coalition government; the N.P.C., the

N.C.N.C and the N.E.P.U while the A.G became the opposition party
in the parliament. Thus, the three parties have 239 seats making
them have majority seats in the House of Representatives to form the
government; while the A.G remained as the opposition party.

The above analysis shows that Nigeria has been operating a multi-
party system of government since her independence; and that in a
multi-party system of government, there may be more than three
major parties aiming at winning the elections; but the parties, after the
election, will ally with one another to allow the government to be
formed.

ADVANTAGES OF MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM
a. Multipartism permits more shades of opinion to be
represented in the legislature.
b. Unlike the two-party system, a multi-party system reflects
more accurately the way in which the popular mind is
actually divided.
c. The greatest advantage is that a multi-party system fragment
the country into smaller parties that no party is strong
enough to form the government unless by coalition.
d. When there are many political parties, there is likely to be
less of uncritical sentiment of loyalty to party, and less will be
the desire to regard all questions habitually and
systematically form a party point of view. People will allow
reason to guide their thinking and decisions rather than

being allowed to be carried away by party ideology as is the
case in a two-party system.
e. Multi-party system gives legitimacy and sovereignty to the
people.
f. Multi-party system creates room for responsible government.
g. Multipartism promotes democracy.
h. Multipartism makes for an effective operation of the rule of
law and separation of powers.
DISADVANTAGES OF MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM
a. A multi-party system leads to instability of government
because not only does the frequent re-alignment of political
parties make the government unstable but it renders the
government weak as it is composed of parties of different
ideologies.
b. The Executive arm of government, the cabinet, is always
very weak. It is usually composed of members drawn from
many political parties and having different ideologies to
pursue. Infact it becomes practically impossible for
members of the cabinet to make quick decisions on
governmental policy, as members will like the policy of the
government to be positive to their party beliefs and thinking.
c. In a multi-party system, it becomes practically impossible for
the government to make long-term policy and planning.
Long-term planning of policy can be successfully attempted
only by a government which is certain of a reasonably long
period in office; and such certainty, if any, can be provided
for only under a two-party or dual party system.

d. The multi-party system does not only weakens the
executive, but gives a disproportionate power to self-
seeking minorities as the ministerial portfolios have to be
shared among the parties that form the coalition in
accordance with an acceptable formula to all the component
parties.
e. Finally, Multi-party system tends to turn important branches
of the legislation into class, bribery and corruption and thus
lowers the tone of the public life.
THE FUTURE OF POLITICAL PARTIES
Though most pronounced in the United States, the decline of
traditional parties is an international phenomenon. Some analysts
believe political parties will one day cease to exist, and that the
function of democratic linkage between citizen and state will then
be performed by polls, by interactive television, and by other
media. Others argue, however, that none of these institutions
offers citizens the public arena in which reasoned debate can lead
to collective action on behalf of an organized membership.
Collective action, they suggest, is the only effective recourse of the
less privileged members of a society. A nation without multiple
strong, competitive political parties will inevitably be a nation in
which power rests in the hands of a narrow elite. Still other
analysts simply note that the first act of a new nation, or a nation
newly liberated from authoritarian control, is to create political
parties. These analysts believe that human political communities
have not outgrown their need for political parties.

REFERENCES

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation.

Nwankwo, B.C (1992): Authority in Government. Almond Publishers.
Makurdi-Nigeria.
Ogbaji, U.A.O (2008): Principles, Practice and Techniques of Public
Administration. Petrosini Publishers, Lagos-Nigeria.

CHAPTER FOUR

DEVELOPMENT OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN NIGERIA
THE NIGERIAN NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY (NNDP)
With the establishment of a Legislative Council under the Clifford
Constitution of 1922, a new political party came into being. It arose
from an earlier political association known as the ILU (Town)
Committee. This new political party soon became the most
powerful political association of the period. It was called the
Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP); inaugurated on 24
June, 1923.
STRUCTURE AND LEADERSHIP OF THE NNDP
The first president of the party was Egerton-Shyngle, Gambian by
birth and a prominent barrister in Lagos. The party relied heavily on
the highly organized market women. The moving spirit or leader of
the party, from its inception until 1946, was Herbert Macaulay. T.H.
Jackson was the first honorary secretary.

Even though it was called the Nigerian National Democratic Party,
the party was in all respects a Lagos affair. It had no branches
outside Lagos and its membership was predominantly Yoruba.
One of the reasons for limiting its activities to Lagos was the fact
that except in Calabar, elections to the Legislative Council were
held only in Lagos. Secondly, politics was not as highly developed
in other parts of the country as in Lagos. Other prominent members

were J.C. Zizer (first solicitor of the party) and Dr. C.C. Adeniyi-
Jones.

OBJECTIVES AND SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR NNDP
The objectives of the NNDP were divided into two: those relating to
Lagos and those relating to Nigeria.
1. The Lagos-related objectives were:
(i) The nomination and election of the Lagos member for the
Legislative Council.
(ii) The achievement of municipal status and complete local
self-government for Lagos.
2. The objectives of nation-wide scope were:
(i) The establishment of branches of the party in all areas of
Nigeria.
(ii) The development of higher education and the introduction of
compulsory education throughout Nigeria.
(iii) Economic development of the natural resources of Nigeria
(iv) Free and fair trade in Nigeria and equal treatment of the
native traders and producers in Nigeria.
(v) The Africanisation of the civil service.

(vi) The recognition of the National Congress of British West
Africa and the pledge to work hand-in-hand with that body in
support of its entire programme.
The financing of the party came essentially from contributions by
Lagos market women and Eshugbayi, the Eleko of Lagos.

ELECTORAL PERFORMANCE OF THE NNDP
The NNDP won the three seats in the Legislative Council in 1923,
and 1928 and 1933. It also won the three-yearly elections to the
Lagos Town Council in 1923, 1926, 1929, 1932 and 1935.NNDP
achieved only part of its objective for Lagos, and very little was
achieved of its objectives or aims for Nigeria. It was, however, the
first and best organized political party in British West Africa from 1923
to 1933.

THE NIGERIA YOUTH MOVEMENT (NYM )
In 1934, the students and graduates of kings College, Lagos, formed
the Lagos Youth Movement, to make known their feelings about the
government‘s educational policy. Their major quarrel was with the
type of training provided by the Yaba Higher College, which they felt
was below the standard expected from an institution which at that
time was the highest in Nigeria. They also demanded that
scholarships be given to deserving Nigerian students to study in the
United Kingdom. They were interested in the appointment of Africans
to higher posts in the civil service and oppose to the discrimination
against Africans. In 1936, the Movement changed its name to the
Nigerian Youth Movement.

STRUCTURE AND LEADERSHIP OF THE NYM
Within a short time after the NYM was organized, branches were
formed in several parts of Nigeria, including Ibadan, Abeokuta and
several other cities and towns, mainly in southern Nigeria. There
were branches of the organization in some towns in the Northern

Region, such as Kano and Kaduna, but their membership was made
up of people mostly from the south. Lagos was the centre of major
activities and the headquarters of the movement.

Among the foundation members were Dr. J.C. Vaughan, H.O.Davies,
Ernest Ikoli and Samuel Akinsanya. Other leaders of the party were
Dr. Kofo Abayomi, Dr. Akinola Maja, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Mobolaji
Bank-Anthony, S.L Akintola, Jubril Martins, Obafemi Awolowo, S.O.
Sonibare, Duro Emmanuel and J.A. Tuyo. The average age of the
movement leaders in 1938 was 40. According to H.C. Davies in 1935,
the membership was over 20,000 in about forty branches, including
Enugu, Jos, Sapele, Ondo, Ijebu-Ode, Port Harcourt and so on.

OBJECTIVES OF THE NYM
1. The unification of tribes of Nigeria through the encouragement of
better understanding and cooperation.
2. The elevation of public opinion to a higher moral and intellectual
level
3. Complete autonomy within the British Empire and complete
independence in the local management of Nigeria affairs.
4. Compulsory and free mass education
5. Voting right for all adult citizens
6. Separation of the judiciary from the executive
7. Opposition to discrimination in the salary of those who work
especially in the civil service where Africans were paid less than
Europeans with the same qualification.

ELECTORAL PERFORMANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES OF NYM
In 1938, the NYM won the election to the Lagos Town Council and all
the three elective seats in the Legislative Council. It thereby displaced
Herbert Macaulay‘s NNDP as the most important political party in
Lagos.

Although it fought hard to achieve its aims and objectives,
government did not cooperate with the organization. Through its
newspaper, the Daily Service, the NYM tried to educate the public on
many political issues. Many of the political leaders who ‗fought‘ for
Nigeria until independence was won in 1960 were members of this
organization in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NIGERIA AND THE CAMEROONS
(NCNC)
In 1941, the resident or boarding students of King‘s College, Lagos,
were asked to vacate their dormitories for soldiers and move to what
they considered inferior lodgings in town. They petitioned
government, but their petition was rejected. This led to a strike in
which 75 of the senior members of the school were expelled and 8 of
them conscripted or forced into military service. In June 1944, the
Nigerian Union of Students (NUS) called a ‗mass meeting‘ at the
Glover Memorial Hall, Boadstreet, Lagos, to consider among other
things, the immediate formation of a representative national
committee.

Herbert Macaulay presided at this meeting and was elected president
of the patriotic association called the National Council of Nigeria
which the meeting decided to form. Nnamdi Azikiwe was elected
General Secretary. The NNDP of Macaulay joined the National
Council. By January, 1945, there were no less than 87 member
unions of the National Council, including three from the Cameroon.
The inclusion of the Cameroon led to change of the name of the
organization to National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons.
Membership was through existing organizations and not on an
individual basis.

STRUCTURE OF THE NCNC
In 1951, the NCNC adopted individual membership. Despite this in
many areas, particularly in some areas in the Western Region and
the Midwest, the party‘s position was based on its alliance with other
local parties, such as Adelabu‘s Mabolaje Grand Alliance and the Otu
Edo in Benin-City.

By 1959, Azikiwe claimed that the party had 142 branches in the
Eastern Region, thirty-seven in the North, one in Lagos and 126 in
the West. Each region had divisional or zonal headquarters, as well
as a regional working committee. The national headquarters was
situated in Lagos. The NCNC was not known for effective
organization, either at the national headquarters, the regional or zonal
divisional offices, or indeed the local offices. Its membership did not
include persons who could b e regarded as professional party
organizers.

LEADERSHIP, MEMBERSHIP AND SUPPORT OF THE NCNC
The first leader of the party was Herbert Macaulay, from whom
Nnamdi Azikiwe took over after the former‘s death in 1948. Dr.
Michael Okpara took over from Azikiwe when the latter became
Governor-General in 1962. Other prominent members of the party
were Odeleye Fadahunsi, Alfred Nwapa, Eni Njoku, Okoi Arikpo,
Adegoke Adelabu, Dennis Osadebay, Festus Okotie-Eboh and
Adeniran Ogunsanya.

The strongest backing for the party came from the Eastern Region,
both in terms of membership and support at various elections
between 1951 and 1965. After the Eastern Region came the Mid-
West Region and then the Western Region. The support of the party
in the Northern Region was through its alliance with the Northern
Elements Progressive Union (NEPU), led by Aminu Kano.

SOURCE OF FINANCE FOR THE NCNC
Apart from overdraft from the African Continental Bank, the party
relied upon membership subscriptions, affiliation fees and dues, sale
of party constitution booklet and other item, levies on the salaries of
members of parliament and board members, as well as donations,
etc. as its sources of revenue.

SUCCESSES AND FAILURE OF THE NCNC
It was the NCNC that first introduced modern representative local
government system into Nigeria. During the leadership and
premiership of Michael Okpara, the party introduced even

development throughout the Eastern Region, especially into areas
now known as Abia, Enugu, Imo and Anambra states. The first
regional university-the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, was established
in the Eastern Region when Nnamdi Azikiwe was premier of the
region and leader of the party.

Proper organization was a problem for the party. Except in the
Eastern Region, not much was achieved in terms of co-ordinated
organization, even at the Federal or national level. As the oldest of
the three major political parties, it failed in its attempts to establish a
national outlook. With age, the party gradually withdrew into the
Eastern Region.

THE ACTION GROUP (AG)
The Egbe Omo Oduduwa, a cultural organization which brought the
Yoruba elite together, had been in existence for about two years
when the basic outlines of the MacPherson Constitution were drawn
up. Obafemi Awolowo was the General Secretary of the organization.
He was also the secretary of the organization‘s committee on
constitutional reform. In March, 1950, he called a meeting of the
Yoruba elite at his residence in Ibadan. Only seven people, beside
himself, attended the meeting. These were Abiodun Akerele, S.O
Sonibare, Ade Akinsanya, J.Ola Adigun, Olatunji Dosumu and S.T.
Oredein. It was not until after the nineth private meeting of the group,
in March 1951, that the Action Group felt strong enough to announce
its existence. At its first public meeting, held at Owo in April, 1951,

Obafemi Awolowo was elected President and Bode Thomas General-
Secretary.
STRUCTURE OF THE ACTION GROUP
From the very beginning, membership was on an individual basis.
Any Nigerian, or any person resident in Nigeria and not less than
sixteen years old, could join. The lowest branch was at the local
government electoral ward level in each region. Next was the
divisional conference, which was made up of one or more local
government units. At the regional level were the regional
parliamentary council and the regional executive committee. The
regional parliamentary council was made up of the chairmen and
representatives of divisional conferences. At the federal level were
the federal executive council and the federal congress, which met
annually. There were federal officers, as well as regional and local
government offices of the party.

LEADERSHIP, MEMBERSHIP AND SUPPORT OF THE AG
The founder and leader of the party was Chief Obafemi Awolowo. He
was, in all respects, the ―moving spirit‖ of the party. Other very
prominent members of the party were Bode Thomas, who was the
first general secretary and later deputy leader of the party; Samuel
Ladoke Akintola, Arthur Prest, Athomy Enahoro, Dauda Adegbenro,
Samuel Ikoku and many more. Ladoke Akintola succeeded Bode
Thomas (after the latter‘s death) as deputy leader of the party and
later took over from Obafemi Awolowo as leader of the party and
premier of the Western Region.

At its inception the Action Group announced itself as a Western
Regional political organization. Even though it tried hard to be more
national, it remained essentially as it started-a Yoruba-dominated and
supported organization. Its influence outside the Yoruba area was
through alliances with smaller political parties, such as Joseph
Tarka‘s United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC), Josiah Olawoyin‘s
Ilorin Talaka Parapo, and the Bornu Youth Movement (BYM), whose
interest it catered for.

SOURCES OF FINANCE FOR THE AG
There were five main source of finance. These were enrolment fees
and monthly subscriptions sale of flags, almanacs, handkerchiefs and
party publications, levies on the salaries of legislators and board
members, donations, as well as overdrafts and loans from the
National Bank of Nigeria Limited.

IDEOLOGY AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE AG
The motto of the party was ‗Life More Abundant.‘ Until about 1961,
the party, like most others in the country, was a party led and
financed by successful lawyers and businessmen. Although the
interests of the common man were of concern to the party, the
interest of the business men were also fully championed. From 1961,
however, the party attempted to give greater emphasis to the
interests of the common man than to those of the big businessmen.
This was one of the causes of the crisis in the party from 1962- 66.

It was the Action Group that first introduced free primary education in
Nigeria in 1955. It also introduced free health services for children
under eighteen years. The party was at the helm when the Western
Region was granted self government in 1957. It was reputed to be the
best organized, best financed and most efficiently run political party in
Nigeria between 1951 and 1962.

THE NORTHERN PEOPLES CONGRESS (NPC)
Like the Action Group, the NPC originated from a cultural
organization. The cultural organization from which the NPC rose was
called the Jamiyyar Jama‟ar Arewa-Meaning the Northern Nigerian
Congress. This cultural association was started by R.A. B. Dikko, first
medical officer of Northern origin and D.A. Rafih in 1948. When the
cultural association became a political party in 1951, all civil servants,
including Dr. Dikko, were advised to resign their membership, Alhaji
Sanda, a Lagos merchant, was made Acting President of the new
political party. The motto of the party was ‗One North One People,
irrespective of religion, rank or tribe.

STRUCTURE OF THE NORTHERN PEOPLES CONGRESS
The party was open only to ‗people of Northern Nigerian descent.‘
Outside of the Northern region, the party existed only in the Sabo
area, where most dwellers of Northern Nigerian descent lived. There
was no organizational structure in the real sense of the term. The
constitution of the party provided only a rough guide to its structure.
The National Executive Committee (NEC) was the policy-making
organ of the party until 1957, when it was replaced by the Central

Working Committee (CWC). Members of the federal legislature were
virtually excluded from the governing organ of the party, which was
dominated by members in the northern legislature. The NEC or CWC
met only occasionally. It met once between 1959 and 1965)

LEADERSHIP AND SUPPORT OF THE NPC
Sir, Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto, who became the leader
of the party in 1952 and Premier of the Northern Region in 1954, was
the chief decision-maker of the party until his death in January, 1966.
Nothing could be carried out in the name of the party particularly in
Northern Nigeria, of which the Sardauna did not approve. He
however consulted with a chosen few, such as Alhaji Tafawa Balewa,
the first and only Prime Minister of Nigeria, Muhammadu Ribadu, Isa
Kaita, Aliyu Makaman Bida, Kashim Ibrahim, Alhaji Usman Nagogo,
the Emir of Katsina and Alhaji Abubakar Bello, the Sultan of Sokoto.
This group constituted the top leadership of the party. The party‘s
ideology was based on its motto ‗One North, One People‘.

As its motto indicated, the party‘s support came entirely from the
North and was over-whelming throughout the party‘s existence. The
party did not try to seek support in other parts of the country.

SOURCE OF FINANCE FOR THE NPC
The NPC was secretive about its sources of finance. It would appear,
however, that some of the sources were dues from regional, federal
and board members, donations, as well as proceeds from the sale of
publications, lectures and social events.

ACIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES OF THE NPC
The party led the people of Northern Nigeria into active and sustained
collaboration with their Southern Nigerian compatriots for the
achievement of independence for Nigeria. It was conscious of the
need for a gradual introduction of modern systems of government into
Northern Nigeria.

The party was, in a way, rather narrow in the scope of its objectives.
Even when the opportunity was available, it refused to change its
name to the Nigerian Peoples Congress. Much more could have
been achieved for the common people of the party had the leadership
been more open-minded and appreciative of the need for change.
The party was slow in introducing mass formal education when the
other major political parties were doing so in other parts of the
country.

THE NEPU, UMBCM, NNDP, NDC, AND UNIP
Each of the three big political parties discussed so far dominated one
of the three regions of Nigeria. In each region, smaller parties existed
and were encouraged, and sometimes financed, by the bigger ones
from outside the state. These smaller parties were essentially political
parties formed by people in the minority areas of each region. Both
the NEPU and UMBC were prominent smaller parties in the Northern
Region. The NEPU was led by Mallam Aminu Kano and was
supported mainly by the poor people from what is now Kano State.
The UMBC was started and led by Joseph Tarka among the Tiv of
Benue-Plateau States. Other smaller parties in the Region were the

Bornu Youth Movement (BYM), which had its support among the
Kanuris and the Ilorin Talaka Parapo (ITP) led by Josiah Olawoyin,
with support from the Yoruba speaking people in Ilorin and Kabba
provinces.

In Eastern Region were the Democratic Party of Nigeria and the
Cameroon (DPNC), which was mainly a breakaway faction of the
NCNC, led by Kingsley Mbadiwe, and the United National
Independent Party (UNIP), which came into existence as a result of
the expulsion of some ministers and other legislators in the 1952-53
crisis in the NCNC. The party fought for a separate Calabar-Ogoja-
River State.

In western Region were the Niger Delta Congress (NDC) led by
Deppa Biriye and Melford Okilo. The NDC came into existence during
the 1964 Federal elections with the single purpose of creating a
Rivers State, and the Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP),
led by Ladoke Akintola. The (NNDP). The NNDP was a coalition of
Akintola‘s breakaway group from the Action Group and Remi Fani-
Kayode‘s breakaway group from the NCNC. Others were the Mid-
West Front and Adunni Oluwale‘s Liberal Party.

ALLIANCES WITH THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES
The Action Group was the champion of minority parties outside its
own region of influence. In the Northern Region, the UMBC, BYM and
ITP remained allied with the Action Group virtually throughout their
existence. The NEPU, on the other hand, remained in alliance with

the NCNC. In the Earthen Region, the UNIP was in alliance with the
Action Group. In the Western Region, the NDC and the NNDP,
particularly during the 1964 federal elections, allied with the NPC to
form the Nigerian National Alliance (NNA). This alliance competed
with the United Progressive Grand Alliance (UPGA) which was made
up of NCNC, Action Group, and the Northern Progressive Front (NPF
comprising the NEPU and UMBC).

PERFORMANCE OF THE NEPU, UMBC, AND NNDP AT FEDERAL
ELECTION, 1959 AND 1964
The NEPU and UMBC performed well in their areas of influence
during the two elections. In Zaria, Katsina and Kano provinces, the
NEPU performed very well against the NPC. In the Tiv area, the
UMBC was able to hold most of the seats allocated, during the two
elections.

In the Western Region, the NNDP formed the western Regional
Government from 1963-66. The election of 1965 in the region was
one of the worst elections ever conducted in Nigeria. Although the
party retained power in the region, the election was neither fair nor
free.

All the other small political parties did not perform well at the two
elections which they contested. Whatever limited electoral success
they scored had little effect on the major party which supported them.

REFERENCES

Lecture Handbook of Dr. Henry Alapiki on ―Political Parties and
Pressure Groups in Nigeria‖ for Year three students of Political and
Administrative Studies Students of the University of Portharcourt.
1999.

Lecture Notebook of Dr. P.G.O Odondiri on ―The Nigeria Constitution‖
for Year Two students of Political and Administrative Studies
Students of the University of Portharcourt. 1998.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE NIGERIAN SECOND REPUBLIC

The Second Republic was the republican government of Nigeria
between 1979 and 1983 governed by the second republican
constitution.

THE FOUNDING OF THE SECOND REPUBLIC (1979)

Following the assassination of Nigerian military Head of State,
General Murtala Mohammed in 1976, his successor General
Olusegun Obasanjo initiated the transition process to terminate
military rule in 1979. A new constitution was drafted, which saw the
Westminster system of government (previously used in the First
Republic) jettisoned for an American Presidential system. The 1979
constitution mandated that political parties and cabinet positions
reflect the "federal character" of the nation — Political parties were
required to be registered in at least two-thirds of the states, and each
state was required to produce at least one cabinet member.

The widely monitored 1979 election saw the election of Alhaji Shehu
Shagari on the NPN platform. On October 1, 1979, Shehu Shagari
was sworn in as the first President and Commander-in-Chief of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria.

THE SECOND REPUBLIC POLITICAL PARTIES

Greater Nigerian People's Party (GNPP)
National Party of Nigeria (NPN)

Nigeria Advance Party (NAP)
Nigerian People's Party (NPP)
People's Redemption Party (PRP)
Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN)

THE SECOND REPUBLIC: AN OVERVIEW.

In the program of transition to the Second Republic, the military
leaders' primary concern was to prevent the recurrence of the
mistakes of the First Republic. They believed that if the structures
and processes of government and politics that had proved
inappropriate in the First Republic could be changed, a stable and
effective civilian government would emerge. The transition was
therefore designed to address those fundamental issues, which were
historically divisive, and to establish new political institutions,
processes, and orientations. Except for the census, which remained
problematic, most issues that threatened the stability and survival of
the federation were addressed. The revenue allocation process was
altered based on the recommendation of a technical committee,
despite the politicians' rejection of its recommendation. Local
governments were also streamlined and made more powerful by the
1976 reforms.

The second aspect of the transition involved the making of a new
constitution and appropriate institutions. A Constitution Drafting
Committee (CDC) was appointed in 1975 under the chairmanship of
a leading lawyer, Rotimi Williams, and, in 1977, a Constituent
Assembly (CA) composed of both elected and appointed officials

examined and ratified the draft constitution. After final ratification by
the SMC, the Constitution was promulgated in 1979. Political Parties
were formed, and new corrective national bodies, such as the Code
of Conduct Bureau, Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, and
Public Complaints Commission, were established. The most far-
reaching changes of the transition were made in the area of
institutionalizing a new constitutional and political system.

At the inauguration of the CDC, Murtala Muhammad outlined the
objectives of transition as the continuation of a federal system of
government with constitutional law guaranteeing fundamental human
rights, maximum participation, and orderly succession to political
power. To avoid the pitfalls of the First Republic, the new constitution
was designed to eliminate political competition based on a system of
winner-takes-all, broaden consensus politics to a national base,
eliminate over-centralization of power, and ensure free and fair
elections. The SMC suggested that these objectives could be met by
recognition of national rather than sectional parties, controls on the
proliferation of parties and on the creation of more states, and an
executive presidential system similar to that in the United States. In
addition, the federal character of the country was to be reflected in
the cabinet; an independent judiciary was to be established as well as
corrective institutions.

The draft constitution incorporated these elements. When the CA met
to ratify the constitution, a few issues were highly volatile. The most
notable was the matter of sharia law, which Muslims argued should
be given appellate jurisdiction at the federal level. Most Christian

members of the assembly vehemently opposed this. Only the
intervention of the head of state resolved the situation. Although the
sharia clause was deleted from the constitution, the cleavage
between Christian and Muslim groups persisted. Other controversial
issues included the creation of more states, the determination of an
age limit for participation in politics (intended to eliminate most
discredited politicians who had actively participated in politics in the
First Republic), and the scope of the executive president's powers.
After the CA completed its work, the SMC added a few amendments,
including use of Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba as additional official
languages in the National Assembly and applying the federal-
character principle to the composition of the armed forces' officer
corps.

By Decree No. 25 of 1978, the 1979 constitution was enacted. The
constitution differed from that of the First Republic in 1963 in that it
introduced a United States-type presidential system in place of the
parliamentary system. Previously, the executive branch of
government derived its powers from the legislature. Under the 1979
constitution, the president and vice president, as well as state
governors and their deputies, were elected in separate elections. The
elections had the federation and the state, respectively, as
constituencies. Furthermore, while the Senate was largely a
ceremonial body in the First Republic, the new constitution gave the
Senate and House of Representatives coequal powers.

There were other provisions in the 1979 constitution that aimed at
eliminating past loopholes. The first was the federal- character

principle, which sought to prevent the domination of power by one or
a few states, ethnic groups, or sections at the federal center, and by
one or more groups in the states and local government areas. The
principle required that the composition of the cabinet, boards, and
other executive bodies, as well as appointments to top government
positions, should reflect the federal character or diversity of the
country at the particular level of government. This principle also
applied to the composition of the armed forces. The principle was
extended to the distribution of national resources, such as the siting
of schools and industries.

The question of party politics became a constitutional matter. In view
of the need for a limited number of national political parties, the
constitution specified certain criteria that parties had to meet in order
to be registered: the name, emblem, or motto of the party could not
contain any ethnic or religious connotation or give the party the image
of a sectional party; membership in the party should be open to all
Nigerians irrespective of ethnic or religious affiliation; the party
headquarters must be in the federal capital; and the executive
committee of the party should reflect the federal character of the
country. The task of registering political parties and conducting
elections was given to the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO).
The necessity for national parties resulted from the conviction that the
disunity of the First Republic was engendered by the regional parties
then operating. When the ban placed on political activities in 1966
was lifted in September 1978, at least fifty-three political associations
were formed. Seventeen of them applied for registration, but only five

were registered: the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), the Nigerian
People's Party (NPP), the United Party of Nigeria (UPN), the Great
Nigeria People's Party (GNPP), and the People's Redemption Party
(PRP). In 1981 a sixth party, the Nigeria Advance Party (NAP), was
registered.

Contrary to the expectations of the drafters of the constitution and the
military rulers, most of these parties resembled the ethno-regional
ones of the pre-1966 period although, legally, parties were required to
transcend ethno-regional bases. The only exceptions were the NAP,
which proclaimed itself a "new breed" party, and the NPN, which
despite its regional antecedents, was probably the only national party
in Nigeria. The UPN was a resurrection of the AG with its Yoruba
core; the NPP was a rejuvenation of the NCNC with its Igbo core and
strands of middle-belt support; the PRP recalled Kano's NEPU; and
the GNPP, which appeared initially to be a new minority‘s formation,
had its strength within the Kanuri section of the north. Apart from the
PRP, which flickered as a radical party, and the populist NAP, the
other parties appeared to be parties of the wealthy class or those who
aspired to join it, for whom politics was a means of enriching
themselves and consolidating their material base. Given this
character of the registered parties, it can be argued that the
perceived need to balance the power groups in the country rather
than the constitutional requirements decided which parties were
registered.

In the 1979 presidential election, NPN candidate Shehu Shagari was
declared the winner, even though many people thought he did not

Text book on political parties and pressure groups full.

Text book on political parties and pressure groups full.

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Text book on political parties and pressure groups full.

Semelhante a Text book on political parties and pressure groups full. (20)

Mais de ogbaji udochukwu

Mais de ogbaji udochukwu (20)

Text book on political parties and pressure groups full.