Chris Okpoko
Consequent on the recent increasing number of defections from opposition parties into the APC, there is a growing concern that it is a deliberate strategy by the ruling party to eliminate political pluralism in the country for a one-party state.
According to Principles of Comparative Politics by Clark William Roberts, a one-party state, single-party state, one-party system or single-party system is a governance structure in which only a single political party controls the ruling system. In a one-party state, all opposition parties are either outlawed or enjoy limited and controlled participation in elections, which I believe is not the case in Nigeria. The term “de facto one-party state” is sometimes used to describe a dominant-party system that, unlike a one-party state, allows (at least nominally) multiparty elections, but the existing practices or balance of political power effectively prevent the opposition from winning power.
In one-party systems, one political party is legally allowed to hold effective power. Although minor parties may sometimes be allowed, they are legally required to accept the leadership of the dominant party. This party may not always be identical to the government, although sometimes positions within the party may be more important than positions within the government. North Korea and China are examples; others can be found in Fascist states, such as Nazi Germany between 1934 and 1945. The one-party system is thus often equated with dictatorships and tyranny.
In dominant-party systems, opposition parties are allowed, and there may even be a deeply established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power. Sometimes, political, social, and economic circumstances, and public opinion are the reasons for other parties’ failure. Sometimes, typically in countries with less of an established democratic tradition, the dominant party may remain in power by using patronage and sometimes by voting fraud. In the latter case, the distinction between a dominant and a one-party system becomes blurred.
Examples of dominant party systems include the People’s Action Party in Singapore, the African National Congress in South Africa, the Cambodian People’s Party in Cambodia, the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, and the National Liberation Front in Algeria. One-party dominant system also existed in Mexico with the Institutional Revolutionary Party until the 1990s, in the southern United States with the Democratic Party from the late 19th century until the 1970s, in Indonesia with the Golkar from the early 1970s until 1998.
In Nigeria, the political landscape has long been characterized by its complex interplay of ethnic, religious, and regional affiliations. While the country initially embraced a multiparty system following independence, various political developments, including military coups, have periodically shifted the balance towards autocratic governance. A prevalent model in Nigeria’s recent history is the emergence of one-party dominance, where a single political party exerts overwhelming control over the state apparatus. This article critically examines the ramifications of a de facto one-party state in Nigeria, highlighting issues of representation, accountability, political pluralism, democratic erosion, and considering potential outcomes and challenges associated with a monolithic political composition in Nigeria.
One of the most significant drawbacks of a one-party state is the erosion of genuine political representation. In Nigeria, the predominance of parties such as the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has led to a scenario where political choices are severely limited. Citizens often find themselves voting for candidates who align with the dominant party rather than those who might truly represent their interests. The result is a weakening of the electorate’s voice, leading to a disenchanted populace that feels systematically marginalized from the political process.
Accountability is a cornerstone of democratic governance, yet the one-party state stifles this crucial element. With a single party monopolizing the political arena, the mechanisms of checks and balances become ineffective. In Nigeria, the absence of a robust opposition allows the ruling party to operate without fear of scrutiny, leading to corruption and inefficiency in governance. The lack of competitive political rivalry fosters an environment where public officials may prioritize personal gain over the welfare of their constituents, consequently perpetuating systemic corruption.
Political stagnation is another inevitable outcome of a one-party-dominated system. In such environments, the absence of diverse political ideologies limits the scope of policy discourse and innovation. In Nigeria, critical issues such as economic diversification, security, and social welfare could benefit from varied political perspectives. However, under a one-party system, policy ideas become homogenized, stifling potential solutions from a pluralistic political environment, thereby hindering national progress.
The principle of political pluralism is vital for a vibrant democracy. In a one-party state, dissenting voices and alternative political movements are often suppressed. This suppression can manifest through legal regulations, political intimidation, or even violence against opposition parties and activists. In Nigeria, this phenomenon has manifested in the systemic marginalization of smaller parties and the silencing of civil society groups that challenge the status quo. Consequently, political discourse becomes a monologue rather than a dialogue, alienating segments of society that feel unrepresented.
Power consolidation in a one-party state often leads to human rights violations, as the ruling entity seeks to maintain control over dissenting voices. In Nigeria, the historical context of political oppression has included unlawful detentions, assaults on freedom of expression, and threats against political opponents. These human rights abuses not only instill fear within the populace but also undermine the legitimacy of the state. When citizens perceive their government as an entity that seeks to silence rather than serve them, it ruins trust in public institutions.
The hegemony of a single party can result in policy unpredictability and lack of continuity due to entrenched political interests. In Nigeria, shifting power dynamics within the ruling party can lead to abrupt changes in policy direction, which complicates long-term development strategies. This instability is particularly damaging in sectors such as education, health, and infrastructure, which require consistent and coherent policy frameworks to foster growth. Consequently, the populace experiences the fallout from policies that lack sustainable foresight.
A one-party system can exacerbate socio-economic inequalities, particularly in a country as diverse as Nigeria. The enduring dominance of a single political entity may result in development initiatives heavily favoring regions and ethnic groups that align with it while neglecting marginalized communities. Such systemic inequality ignites social tensions, fueling resentment among those who feel marginalized or discriminated against. The regional disparities in Nigeria illustrate the potential risks of one-party dominance on national cohesion and stability.
Today, one of the most prominent political parties in Nigeria is the All Progressives Congress (APC), which has been a major player in the country’s political arena since its formation in 2013. Imagining a scenario where all elected officials belong to the APC invites a multifaceted discussion about governance, representation, political accountability, and the broader implications for democratic norms.
One of the primary effects of having all elected officials from a single party, namely the APC, would be the significant consolidation of power. In theory, this uniformity could lead to enhanced efficiency in governance, whereby decisions could be made and implemented swiftly without the encumbrance of partisan opposition. Legislative initiatives that align with the party’s manifesto could be expedited, potentially resulting in the successful execution of long-standing policies aimed at economic growth and infrastructural development. For instance, concerted efforts could be directed towards tackling the issues of unemployment, poverty, and inadequate healthcare as outlined in the APC’s agenda, allowing for coherent and unified governance.
However, the consolidation of political power also poses substantial risks to democracy. The absence of opposition voices may lead to a democratic deficit, where dissent and alternative viewpoints are systematically marginalized. In a healthy democracy, political pluralism encourages debate, critical discourse, and diverse representation, which are vital for holding the government accountable to the electorate. Without opposition, there exists a danger of authoritarianism, where governance becomes less about public service and more about party supremacy. This scenario could witness the erosion of checks and balances, resulting in potential human rights abuses and a lack of transparency in government dealings.
Moreover, if all elected officials belonging to the APC are imbued with the party’s ideologies, it may inadvertently stifle innovation within policymaking. Different political parties often represent varied interests and approaches to problem-solving, which fosters competitive discourse on governance strategies. In the absence of diverse political thought, policies may become stagnant, lacking the necessary scrutiny and challenge that drive constructive change. Consequently, this could lead to an unresponsive government that fails to adapt to the dynamic needs of its citizens, particularly in a rapidly evolving global context.
The social implications of having a single-party governance structure could further exacerbate existing ethnic and regional divides in Nigeria. The APC, while it has made significant strides in promoting national unity, is still perceived through the lens of its emergence from a coalition of regional parties. If every elected official were to belong to the APC, there exists the risk of alienating those who do not identify with or support the party. Such alienation may provoke dissent among disenfranchised populations, potentially escalating into civil unrest or destabilization, especially in regions that feel overlooked or marginalized.
From an electoral policy perspective, the overwhelming dominance of a single party could hinder democratic renewal. Competitive elections motivate political parties to engage with the electorate effectively. If the APC were to dominate all levels of elected office, voter engagement and turnout might decline, as citizens could question the efficacy of participating in a political system that lacks plurality. Consequently, this could lead to apathy towards the electoral process, which would be detrimental to the democratic fabric of the nation. Political engagement requires a healthy competition where parties vie for influence, and the absence of such competition can lead to disenfranchisement.
In conclusion, while the scenario in which all elected officials belong to the APC presents certain immediate advantages in terms of legislative efficiency and policy coherence, the overarching consequence would pose a significant threat to democratic principles and social cohesion in Nigeria. The risks of authoritarianism, stifled innovation, and societal divides must be carefully considered against the necessity of a pluralistic political environment that encourages representation, accountability, and active citizen engagement. The strength of a democracy lies not merely in its policies but in its ability to foster a dynamic and inclusive political dialogue that resonates with the diverse fabric of its society. Therefore, ensuring a balanced power structure, where multiple parties contribute to governance, remains paramount for Nigeria’s democratic ideals.
