Connect with us

Politics

The Futility Of Two-Party System In Nigeria

Published

on

Basically the countries that are known to be operating a two-party system are United States of America, Japan, Jamacai, Hundaras and to a large extent, United Kingdom, Great Britain. But even in these countries, small parties still exist. Such parties are restricted not by legislation but by their capacity and modes of operation.

In other words, they do not have national presence. Here, you have two parties emerging and becoming strong such that when there is need for election people are now faced with the choice of just the two parties at the national and state levels.

In Nigeria, section 40 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has guarantees freedom of participation to every individual. Subject to INEC recognising any political party and looking at section 221 and 227 of the constitution they spell some regulations which INEC can impose on parties.  These have been tested in court but that is not my brief.

In other words, INEC has been given the regulatory power. It registers, regulates and also supervises political parties. That is why we have over 50 political parties.

Historically in Nigeria, this is the first time. We are going to have that number of political parties. From the first election in 1959 which ushered in the independent government, we had a few political parties – the National People’s Congress, the Action Group, the United Nigeria Congress and the rest. A few, not more than six.

The second republic which was Alhaji Shehu Shagari-led government had a few political parties as well namely  National Party of Nigeria, (NPN) the Unity Party of Nigeria, (UPN) the Great Nigeria People’s Party (GNPP)  and a few others which did not have national spread.

As could be seen, even in the first Republic, the fight was straight between the NPP and AG, other parties like the UNDP teamed up with  Action Group, whereas the NPC and NCNC teamed up in coalition or quasi coalition.

Now in the second republic, the NPN was of majority but some how, it had quasi coalition with the NPP led by Nnamdi Azikiwe. The UPN was left to stand on its own as the principal opposition party.

In the botched third republic that is the diarchy ran by General Ibrahim Babangida, what emerged was a two party system. They were the National Republican Convention (NRC) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP). The experiment of that time cannot be assessed at this moment because it was a diarchy and the election that would have allowed us to assess that regime was aborted or annulled by that government. So we cannot fully assess the advantages and disadvantages of a two-party system in Nigeria.

Historically, Nigeria has been operating a multi-party system even though limited to a very few number of political parties. This is the first time we are experimenting with more than five or six political parties. The question one would ask is, “Is that beneficial? And I believe that is why the debate at the National Assembly is hot. Because on one side of the divide there are people who are saying that “yes, two-party system is the answer”,  and on the side, there are people who are saying “This is the first time we’re having it so, good in terms of expanding the political sphere and allowing people to operate, so two-party system, No”.

There is also a middle course group which is insisting that we can allow multi party system but let us go back to the old system of having a least five or six and then with a caveat; independent candidature so when you juxtapose all these arguments vis-à-vis our historical background you will realise that we are still young in our democratic experiment.

The countries officially practicing a two-party system have advanced democracy. For instance, the Japan constitution of 1946 has not created a two-party system.

Infact it is only in Nigeria to the best of my knowledge that the issue about creating a political party is provided for in the constitution. In Afghanistan there is a general right for every citizen to form a political party or belong to a political party. There is no regulation of any kind. But the only condition is that the political parties must not be based on tribe or ethnicity and must not have foreign affiliation.

When you consider the fact that Afghanistan is a monolithic society in terms of the fact that the 2004 constitution of Afghanistan made it the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, you will consider that even in such monolithic society, they have allowed multi-party system to operate.

Nigeria is too large, too multi-ethnic, too multi-cultural to just have two parties. Japan is a monolithic society as well. They speak one language basically but that they are targeting two-parties may be because of their cultural background. But if you look at United States of America uptill today if there is a need to include another state in America they will emerge at the mercy of the constitution.

The constitution provides that states may still be incorporated, into the union if the need arises. Even though they are practicing a multi-party system, they have restricted it to two-party not by legislation but by evolution, by growth. They have allowed as many political parties as possible; but by evolution based on ideologies, two schools of thought have shaped the Republicans and the Democrats Parties.

The Democratis are considered to be for the poor, the deprived and the immigrants. So when they are campaigning they campaign along this line.

The Republicans are called the grand old party because they are conservative in nature. They are believed to be for the rich and also believed to be anti-immigrants. This extenuating circumstances apply to some extent to Nigeria but, not all. We have more people in this country but we don’t have immigration as an issue. But we don’t have ready ideologies that is why you see some body decamping today to one party and coming back again.

In Nigeria, there is no ideological frame work of any of  the political parties. So, we cannot effectively practice two-party system, at least for now. It could come up tomorrow, it could evolve. Legislating into a two-party system does not enjoy my support. But I will toe the middle line.A two party system is not ideal in Nigeria. I believe that about 10-party system is okay.

No matter the  ideological school, culture or tribe, you must necessarily find a space to operate within this 10-party structure. And again, I will add that I am in support of independent candidature so that if per chance you discover that you cannot fit into any of these political set ups, then you run as independent candidate

Sebastine Hon is a legal practitioner and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).

 

Sebastine Tar Hon

Continue Reading

Politics

FG’s Economic Policies Not Working – APC Chieftain

Published

on

A senator who represented Taraba Central, Mr Abubakar Yusuf, has declared that the economic policies of President Bola Tinubu are not yielding the expected results.
His comment is one of the strongest internal critiques yet from within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
The comment underscores the growing dissatisfaction within sections of the ruling party over the direction and impact of the administration’s economic reforms amid rising living costs and fiscal pressures across the country.
Mr Yusuf, who served in the Senate between 2015 and 2023 under the platform of the APC, made the remarks during an appearance on national television.
Responding to a question on whether the administration’s economic direction, often referred to as Tinubunomics, was working, Mr Yusuf answered in the contrary.
“For me, it is not working. I am a member of the APC. I would be the last person to hide the facts”, he said.
He said while the government might be operating diligently within its policy structure, the framework itself is ill-suited to Nigeria’s current realities
“Within the policy framework, yes, they are doing their best, but it is not the framework that is suitable for Nigeria at the point in time that President Asiwaju came into power,” he said.
Mr Yusuf criticised the immediate removal of fuel subsidy on the day the president was sworn in, arguing that the decision lacked sufficient consultation and planning.
“I am one of those who say President Asiwaju ought to have waited. Not on the day he was sworn in to say subsidy is gone. On what basis?”, he asked.
He urged broader engagement before major fiscal decisions are taken.
“Sit down with your cabinet, sit down with your ministers, sit down with your advisers,” he said, dismissing the argument that subsidy removal was justified solely on grounds of corruption.
The former lawmaker identified “structural flaws” in the country’s budgeting system, particularly the envelope budgeting model.
“One of the basic problems is that before you budget, you should have a plan. The envelope system we have been operating has been you budget before you plan. That has been a major issue”, he said.
He argued that allocating spending ceilings without aligning them to concrete development strategies inevitably weakens implementation and delivery.
“If you give me an envelope which is contrary to my plan, whether it is plus or minus, there is no way I am going to implement my plan. It is bound to fail,” he said.
Mr Yusuf called for the scrapping of the envelope budgeting system, noting that he had consistently opposed it even during his years in the National Assembly.
“It is not good for us. It is not going to work well for us,” he said.
He further blamed poor capital releases and persistent deficit financing for undermining budget performance over the years.
“We could not meet 60 percent of our capital budget in all these years. No releases. If you make a budget and the release is very poor, there is no way the budget will be executed”, he stated.
According to him, weak fund disbursement mechanisms and reliance on deficit financing have entrenched a cycle of underperformance.
“Our budget ought to have been a surplus budget, but all our budgets have always been deficit financing budgets,” Mr Yusuf added.

Continue Reading

Politics

Reps To Meet,’Morrow Over INEC’s 2027 Election Timetable

Published

on

The Nigerian House of Representatives has resolved to reconvene for an emergency session tomorrow February 17, 2026, to deliberate on issues arising from the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) release of the timetable for the 2027 general elections.
The decision was disclosed in a statement issued by the House Spokesman, Rep. Akin Rotimi, who described the electoral body’s announcement as one of “constitutional and national significance.”
INEC had fixed February 20, 2027, for the Presidential and National Assembly elections.
According to the statement, members of the Green Chamber were notified of the emergency sitting through an internal memorandum from the Speaker’s office.
The session is expected to focus on legislative matters connected to the newly released timetable, reflecting the House’s resolve to act promptly on issues affecting the nation’s democratic process.
Rep. Rotimi noted that all related businesses would be treated with urgency and urged lawmakers to prioritise attendance in view of the importance of the deliberations.
INEC had on Friday formally unveiled the comprehensive schedule for the 2027 polls, including timelines for party primaries slated for July to September 2026, as well as the commencement of Continuous Voter Registration in April 2026.
The development comes amid ongoing consultations and proposed amendments to the Electoral Act ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Continue Reading

Politics

Group Continues Push For Real Time Election Results Transmission

Published

on

As the controversy over the transmission of election results continues across the country, the Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), a pro democracy organisation in the country, has criticised the National Assembly for not giving express approval to real time transmission of elections results.
To this end, the group is calling on all civil society organisations in the country to mobilise and push for a better Electoral Reform in the country.
This was contained in a press statement titled, “Defence For Human Rights and Democracy Demands Real Time Election Transmission of Result”, a copy of which was made available to newsmen in Port Harcourt.
The group described the refusal of compulsory real time transmission of result results by the Senate as undemocratic, adding that the situation will give room for election manipulation, rigging and voters apathy.
It said that the provision of mandatory real time transmission of election results would have significant improvement on the nation’s democracy.
According to the statement, “Since the return of democracy in 1999 to date, it is 27 years, so our Democracy has metamorphosed from being nascent and as such significant improvement should have been recorded.
“Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), is really disappointed at the National Assembly, especially the upper chamber (Senate) for not approving ‘Real Time Electronic Transmission of Election Result’.
“This undemocratic act of theirs, if not tamed, will give room for election manipulation and rigging’”.
Signed by Comrade Clifford Christopher Solomon on behalf of the organisation, the statement further said, “The Defence For Human Rights and Democracy unequivocally supports real time transmission of election result”, stressing that his group will resist any act by the National Assembly to undermine the nation’s democracy.
“DHRD,unequivocally supports ‘True Democracy’, which is Government of the people, by the people and for the people.
“Therefore, anything that will crash the hope of Nigerians to Freely, Fairly and Transparently elect candidates of their choice in any given election should and will be vehemently resisted because good governance begins with leaders elected through credible process. By so doing, leaders have entered a social contract with the citizens to equitably manage their affairs and abundant resources”, the statement added.
It urged the National Assembly to revisit the issue in order to avoid civil unrest.
According to the DHRD, “To avoid civil unrest,voters apathy, election rigging and manipulation, rather to promote citizens participation, advancing our Democracy and entrenching free, fair, credible and acceptable electoral outcome, the National Assembly should amend the electoral act in a manner that will deepen our democracy and boost citizens confidence.
“On this note, The Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), is calling on all other civil society organisations (CSOs) to mobilise, organise and push for a better electoral act amendment by the National Assembly”.

By: John Bibor

Continue Reading

Trending