CATASTROPHE OF UNITY: WHY NIGERIAN POLITICS SHOULD EMBRACE DISCORD
The word ‘unity’ often carries a number of positive connotations in its trail. However, and quite ironically, there are certain instances where unity becomes unfavourable and outright hostile. Unity—for example—is not cheered in a capitalist system where manufacturers must ‘disagree’ amongst themselves to produce the best commodities for the ever value-hungry market and ultimately cross swords with monopoly. Correspondingly, uniformity of thoughts does not lead to problem-solving in a brainstorming session of a board meeting where differing ideas are needed to find the most suitable and effective solution to a problem. In a similar vein, the uniformity of ideology is the bane of the fiasco called politics in Nigeria.
Contrary to the seeming disarray rife in the system, Nigerian politicians are bound together by a common norm, share similar motives and intentions and adopt quite the same policies and approaches, without any clear ideological dichotomy providing the grounds for fundamental disagreements which, consequently, spurs progress. There is no doubt that the absence of an ideology-based politics is what gives rein to radical money-driven and egocentric politics which has been the system for decades.
Nigerian political parties are not based upon or governed by any set of principles or overarching tenets that drives the overall activities of the parties and carve their trajectories in the long run. In more factual terms, there are no real political parties in Nigeria, but a political class—The Establishment.
Like an old wound that has eaten deep into our flesh, one of the scathing effects of this lack of ideology-based politics is widespread vote-buying. Indeed, this almost intractable Nigerian disease is an unpopular practice in the West, especially in the United States and the UK. This fact can be demonstrated in numerous examples. During American elections, for instance, it would not be surprising to see a lower-class liberal from a Blue (Democrat) state, say, California, reject an offer of $1,000 to vote Republican. As strange as it may seem, given our own reality, the reason can be traced to his ideological beliefs and orientation. A Democrat knows that, as a matter of policy, Republicans would launch tax breaks for the rich rather than cut taxes for him—an average citizen.
Even though Republicans have formulated rather compelling theories substantiating this policy of cutting taxes for big corporations, top of which is because they are the drivers of the economy, an average Democrat would care less because he prefers the democratic approach. He would also not vote because he wants the minimum wage increased—a demand Republicans would not accede to because they fear companies would go out of business as a result.
Apart from economic policies, there are cultural and socio-political bases that characterise these divides and electorates are generally driven by perceived fears emanating from them. Republicans, who are largely conservatives, would not sell their votes when they consider certain far-reaching cultural implications of having a liberal on seat. The issues of abortion, LGBTQ, migration, etc. have remained subjects of a perpetual ideological cum political debate continuum in the USA and they do, time and again, influence voter choice.
Another problem associated with this lack of ideology politics run in Nigeria is incessant defection. The extravagant rate at which defection occurs within our political parties does not only exposes the fact that there are no real political parties in the country but also affects the stability of the government. In a nation where politics is intertwined with ideology, defection rarely occurs. The reason is because switching parties would mean abandoning long-held beliefs and orientation. In the US and other Western countries, a politician who cross-carpets must have undergone a profound shift in paradigm cutting across his economic stance, moral beliefs and socio-cultural philosophies. This, however, scarcely happens in the Occident. Unlike the USA, defection in Nigeria is fundamentally a search for greener pastures rather than an ideological decision as there are no visible ideological divides across the political landscape.
According to BBC News, 37 PDP members of the House of Representatives defected to the APC in 2013 alone. This clearly does not include switches that occurred in other levels and organs of the government that year. The only explanation for that outrageous number is that like bees, they were attracted to the honeycomb of money and power. On the other side of the spectrum, only 34 Republicans switched parties to the Democratic Party between 2010–2019. This includes GOP politicians from the federal, state and local levels in addition to the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
The mechanism of divergent ideological and political views is the engine of democracies like the USA and the UK. While one party could adopt capitalist policies in the organisation of the economy, the other can tow the path of socialism. In the aftermath, a balance can be achieved between welfare and free enterprise. As Frans Johansson said, the best ideas emerge when very different perspectives meet. These ideas can be woven into a complex tapestry of varied options for solving national issues. Nigerian politics indeed need a Right and a Left to make things ultimately right. And while this might not be the panacea to the multi-varied problems bedevilling the country, it does offer real benefits and is a step in the right direction.
