“A new political party is what we need. A new party with new plan, (and an) ideology that will bring succor to the sufferings of Nigerians is the answer.”
Gambo deserves some credit: he phrases the matter delicately as a commentary on the incumbent dominating political party and government.
His “what we need”, “new plan” “ideology” means change, another form of change to end, he tells us, “the sufferings (sic) of Nigerians”.
We ask him, although he seems to have answered the question already: what happened to the change that happened in 2015?
So we ask another question: if the formation of a new political party did not solve Nigeria’s problems since 2015, what is the guarantee that a new party would gain power and perform better than the ruling APC?
Professional politicians don’t comment on the matter as carefully as Gambo attempted. They are brazen about it and they have been loud too.
They make it sound like a threat and a given solution. When you hear them boasting that a new political party is on the way, you are left in no doubt that they are issuing a threat.
But is a new political party the solution to Nigeria’s foreign exchange crisis or the people’s angst?
The conundrum is easy to resolve. It is easy for the political elite in Nigeria to change their garments, sans remorse, ideology or sentiment and that is how some of the most prominent political figures in Nigeria today have changed party membership cards more than five times in the last 17 years.
The politics of elitism in Nigeria is simply about access to power, position and privileges. It has nothing to do with the people’s interests.
The APC is in crisis for this reason, very much like the PDP, and even the smaller parties, because these are political parties of big men of influence.
Conflict results when they are not allowed to exercise that influence by other competing big men, who are similarly if not equally driven by ego, religion and superior ethnic considerations.
The exercise of influence as a party big man follows a known pattern: after electoral victory, the big man wants the spoils of victory; he wants positions for his followers, contracts for wives and children and the freedom to have a say in the new government.
Any attempt to shut him down, oppose him, or sideline him or her, immediately creates a crisis within the party.
The greater the number of such big persons who feel short-changed and marginalized, the greater the chances of such factionalism that would trigger threats of a new political party.
New groups can create new tendencies in society, but in Nigerian politics, new groups don’t really emerge, it is the same recycled set moving from one political party to a new or another one, looking for benefits.
Poverty, low literacy and the weakness of public institutions make the people vulnerable.
The people embrace slogans and the dividends of what is now known in Nigeria as “stomach infrastructure.” They are deceived by the politicians’ display of affection and empathy.
Because they are hungry, they accept money to attend rallies to help create an illusion of populism and acceptability.
On election day, they sell their votes and sign off their freedom.
After the election, they are too ashamed to speak up or they compensate for their psychological distress by subscribing to the politics of vengeance.
A patrimonial and neo-patrimonial political system such as we run in Nigeria promotes nothing but difference, disappointment and distrust.
Those who are plotting to create a new political party should be told that the harvest is predictable: more intense leadership competition, high level conflict among big men, greater deception, increased difference and tension within the polity.
Political parties are governed by rules: the Nigerian political system operates above rules. It is possibly one of the most Machiavellian in Africa.
What do we need? Not recycled politicians posing as new party men and women.
But this: effective party organizations, like the NCNC, the NEPU, the NPC, the AG, APGA, UPN, UMBC of old which belonged to the people and reflected their aspirations.
The only difference should be a necessary disconnect with the politics of ethnicity at the heart of the party formation process in Africa which, as seen, defeats the objectives of true democracy and modernization.
Institutionalization of the political party system will also ensure stability within the democratic order:
After a bitter political contest in the United States in 2016, the two dominant political parties – The Republican and the Democratic have remained stable, and the country is being projected as supreme.
We should end this then where we started: leadership is the principal challenge.
Until we sort that out, Nigeria’s politics will remain trapped in the throes of ethnicity, patrimonialism, authoritarian dominance, the threat of system volatility and fragmentation and the politics of revenge.
By Reuben Abati
