By
Edwin Madunagu
(As I was completing the rough draft of
this essay, the announcement came of the official registration of the new
“merger-party”, the All Progressive Congress (APC). If this means – as I
think it does – the effective dissolution of three previously existing main
parties and their incorporation into the new party, together with fractions of
some other parties then it is a new development in mainstream politics in
Nigeria. Projections will follow after this opening segment).
Before I went on my last short break, I
was trying to catch up with, and making meaning of, the current political
situation in our country. One of my objectives was to isolate the various
elements of this crisis and see how they are linked to produce the current conjuncture.
My refrain, I said, was: “Laugh not, weep not, but understand”. In the course
of that exercise, I recalled (in the last piece before the break, Tales from
our political history, July 18, 2013) two tragic-comical political events (1992
and 1999). I intend to continue from there.
From 1999 until a couple of months ago,
the Nigerian Governors Forum was united: it had all the 36 state governors as
members. In the group were state governors produced by the ruling party, the
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and five opposition parties: Action Congress of
Nigeria (ACN); Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), All Nigeria Peoples Party
(ANPP), All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) and the Labour Party (LP). The
forum is a voluntary association. It is not mentioned in the Nigerian
Constitution and therefore has no constitutional role in this political
dispensation. I don’t know if it was even registered with the Corporate
Affairs Commission (CAC).
Until recently, I did not know that the
forum had a Constitution, a Secretary and a Director-General. I did not know
how the forum selected its leaders and spokespersons, but had observed that
they had almost always been PDP governors who dominated the group numerically.
But sometime last year Governor Peter Obi of Anambra State, a product of
opposition All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), addressed the press after a
meeting of the forum. Then I said to myself: “These people must be very
liberal”. It was recently, during the current crisis that I knew that Peter Obi
was the Deputy Chair of the forum and had addressed the press in that capacity.
Even now, as I write, I don’t know
which came before the other: the national governors’ forum or the regional
/party forums. However, in spite of my ignorance of, and
disinterestedness in, the organizational details of the Nigerian Governors
Forum (NGF), I had recognized it as an informal group created to exert
collective pressure on the “big brother”, the Federal Government. That
made sense to me in a multi-tier hierarchical governance structure and a strong
presidency that the country now operates.
I also knew that the forum could, and
would, be used for other things, and that new friendships and alliances, across
party lines, could develop within the forum. The two projections have come to
pass – transforming the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF), a informal gathering,
into a powerful factor in the current political crisis and power struggle in
Nigeria.
The various conclaves of Nigerian
governors, including the Nigerian Governors Forum played a critical role
in General Obasanjo’s re-nomination as presidential candidate of the ruling
People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2003 general elections. I understand
Obasanjo had to beg (some say, prostrate before) the PDP governors before he
was adopted. Informed by experience, Obasanjo first had to “settle accounts”
with the forums and their leaderships before imposing his choice of successor
president on his party and the nation in the 2007 presidential election. The
governors’ role in resolving the problem of successor to late President Yar’
Adua is well known.
What was the secret of the Nigerian
Governors Forum or, rather, the PDP state governors’ power? There are two
sources. First, PDP state governors are the leaders of the party in their
respective states. They stand not in the state structures of their party, but
above them, above the state executive committees of the party. In fact the PDP
state governors largely determine the composition of the party’s state
executives.
As executive governors they have the “financial muscle”; this
translates to having immense powers of patronage. The state governors largely
control state delegates to national conventions and this translates to dominant
influence in the composition of the National Executive Committee.
These powers are not possessed by
governors of other parties. This is one of the differences between the PDP and
other political parties active in this political dispensation. These
differences were not deliberately created by anyone; they were compelled by the
unique origin(s) of the party (as a ruling class party) and its motive force.
An understanding of this uniqueness, – which I may call the existence in the PDP
of multiple centres of gravity, rather than a single one (like in other
mainstream parties) – will help us see, more clearly, the power struggle going
on in the country – in particular what happened in the Nigerian Governors
Forum and, above all, what is happening in, and to, the ruling party.
I may
here propose that the immediate political future of Nigeria will be determined
more by how the current crisis in PDP is resolved, or resolves itself, than by
any other factors we can see now. Just a small error or tactical miscalculation
or accident may suddenly produce this resolution or self-resolution even as I
write.
A certain ideological trend, strong and
transcending class boundaries, has existed in Nigerian politics since the
period of decolonization, that is, from around 1950. This trend has existed
both on the Right and on the Left. On the Right it takes this form: “The
country needs unity to overcome underdevelopment; thereafter we can talk of
ideologies and ideological differences; for now there is no need for
ideological politics because the country is not ripe for it.
For this desired unity we need a
non-ideological national party”. On the Left this ideology of “national
unity” is expressed this way: “This is a period of National Democratic
Revolution and not Socialist Revolution or even Popular- Democratic Revolution.
This period calls for a national party of all virile social classes and forces,
a national party in which the Left should strive to play active role and work
very hard – preferably silently – for the next stage of the revolution, namely,
a socialist revolution”.
I hasten to add that this “Left”
ideological formulation of political necessity has been stoutly rejected by the
Marxist Left – although I would concede that the trend has been able to cause
disruptions and win “souls”, that is, co-opt prominent leftists, for “non-
ideological” national politics. I shall not pursue this matter here – since it
is not the focus of this article – beyond saying that it did not take long
before the merger of the Right and Left formulations of “national unity”
ideology.
This “non-ideological” national
ideology took a leap after the Civil War (1967 – 1970) which its ideologues on
the Right and on the Left claimed vindicated their positions. The ideologues
rejected ethnic, tribal, regional, religious and socialist parties. Of
course, they arrogated to themselves the exclusive capacity to identify
“undesirable” political parties. The ideology of “national unity” was claimed
to have informed the formation of the Second Republic’s National Party of
Nigeria (NPN) and the present Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
How did the inspirers, founders and
promoters of NPN and PDP go about their tasks? Basically the same methods
although their formations were separated by 20 years (1978 and 1998): Political
groups and prominent Nigerians of all ideological tendencies and regional or
ethnic colourations were invited to join the “national effort”.
Negotiations were conducted with every group or personage that came along. The
usual question was: “What is in this thing for us and for the people we
represent?” Something was always promised. If a group wanted
“assurances” they were given; if a signed agreement was demanded, the group
would be obliged.
What were the “somethings” that were
usually demanded for the purpose of negotiation? Generally they included party
and government positions and positions in institutions and parastatals already
existing or to be specially created. In particular cases where a group or
individual was bringing along a large and strong constituency, it could be
promised a geopolitical sphere to control at certain levels. These latter
promises were usually documented and signed. Groups and individuals given
promises of “control” constituted jealously guarded interim centres of gravity
of the new party – to be confirmed at pre-inauguration caucuses.
As expected, disagreements and splits
often occurred at pre-convention caucus meetings or even as late as at
inaugural conventions. Splits occurred at the final stages of the formations of
NPN and PDP, but the damage in each case was quickly repaired. Other mainstream
political parties in the two political parties (that is, other than the NPN in
the Second Republic and the PDP in this dispensation) were not formed the way
these two ruling parties were formed: the former were usually
fully-formed, with leaders, leaderships and structures, programmes, main
organs, – and sometimes presidential and gubernatorial candidates - before open
invitations for membership. Each of them had a single centre of gravity.
• To be continued
No comments:
Post a Comment