GROWING NIGERIA'S DEMOCRACY THROUGH
VIABLE POLITICAL PARTIES
By
Hassan A. Saliu PhD
And
Abdulrasheed A. Muhammad
Department of Political Science
University of Ilorin
PMB 1515, Ilorin, Nigeria
1
GROWING NIGERIA'S DEMOCRACY THROUGH VIABLE POLITICAL
PARTIES
Introduction
There is no denying the fact that the contemporary world is characterized by a
sweeping democratic ferment. This has occurred in different phases and across
continents (see, Hyden, 1995; Hadenius, 1997; Isaac 1998). Apparently, democratic
changes in other parts of the world such as Europe and America coupled with
internal problems of governance inspired many African countries in the direction of
democratization as witnessed, for instance, in Benin in the late 1980s and Nigeria in
the 1990s. Although there is a tendency to attribute the democratic ferment
sweeping across Africa to external pressures or developments within the
international system, the determination and resilience of Africans for democratic rule
cannot be wished away (Saliu 2004:4). In other words, Africa’s increasing
democratization profile is a product of external factors much as it is a product of
internal factors. This increasing profile is amply demonstrated in Nigeria’s current
democratic experience, which, began in May 1999. But while the democratization
wave was blowing over the country, it was caught up in what has been described as
the victory and crises of democracy in Nigeria (Muhammad, 2006) – a trend that is
attributable to fragility of some democratic institutions. Democracy is no doubt, a
continuous process. It therefore follows that as the process deepens, there must be
concomitant growth in the institutions responsible for sustainable democracy.
Obviously, one set of institutions for democratic growth are the political parties
without which the majoritarian model of democracy would be practically impossible.
In Nigeria and Africa generally, before the coming of Europeans, the whole idea of
2
political party was an alien phenomenon. However, nationalist pressures during
colonial era quickened the pace of constitutional development, which in turn
stimulated the development of political parties (Sklar quoted in Adele 2001:42).
Thus, political parties in Nigeria have become, as elsewhere, an established
institution of democratic politics.
In discussing the nature of political parties in Nigeria, Ujo (2000:18-42)
attempted a classification. The first generation of parties according to him consisted
of the pre 1945 parties. These included the Nigerian national Democratic Party
(NNDP) and some other political associations such as the Nigerian Youth Movement
(NYM). According to him, many of them were more of glorified interest groups since
their concerns were to influence specific policies of the colonial government. The
second generation consists of those that emerged between 1945 and end of the
First Republic. These were the Northern Peoples’ Congress (NPC), Action Group
(AG), National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC), United Middle Belt Congress
(UMBC) and Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU). They were classified as
nationalist parties by Ujo because their intent was to wrestle power from the
colonialist – a task that they eventually succeeded in accomplishing. They
succeeded in this period because the colonial machinery was conceived to be the
“out group” against the “in-group” (Nigerians) thus, a high degree of mobilization of
the citizenry to end formal colonial rule was easy to achieve (Yaqub 2002:123-1240).
Unfortunately, intra and inter party rivalries characterized these parties after
independence leading to their degeneration into more or less ethnic pressure groups
– a trend which eventually led to the collapse of the First Republic. The third
3
generation of parties which Ujo (2000) identified were parties of the Second
Republic, 1979-1983 and they included the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), Unity
Party of Nigeria (UPN), Nigerian Peoples’ Party (NPP), Peoples’ Redemtion Party
(PRP), Great Nigeria Peoples’ Party (GNPP) and Nigeria Advance Party (NAP).
What characterised parties of this epoch is that in spite of the government’s attempt
to avoid their degeneration into regional parties as experienced in the First Republic,
most of the parties turned out to be reincarnates of the First Republic parties. For
instance, the NPN, UPN, NPP and PRP were adjudged to be similar both in
leadership and orientation to the NPC, AG, NCNC and NEPU respectively. The
fourth generation of parties was the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the National
Republican Convention (NRC) of the aborted Third Republic. Unlike the earlier
parties, the SDP and NRC appeared to live above troubled waters of ethnic
chauvinism and religious bigotry to a large extent. This may be explained partly by
the constitutional requirements set for party registration, which compelled
moderation on the part of politicians and partly because of centrality of the state to
their creation. Thus, the trend of support and outcome of the elections portrayed the
parties as somewhat nationally based (Akinterinwa 1997). Also included in the fourth
generation parties were the five parties registered during the regime of General Sani
Abacha – Congress for National Consensus (CNPP), United Nigeria Congress Party
(UNCP), Grassroots Democratic Movement (GDM), Democratic Party of Nigeria
(DPN), and the National Centre Party of Nigeria (NCPN) - which from all indications
were crafted to fulfill the personal ambition of a transmuting General and; political
parties of the current democratic administration (Fourth Republic).
4
Beyond the above classifications however, it must be stated that as in other
democracies, political parties in Nigeria are a core institution of democratic politics.
Indeed, the character and tendencies exhibited by these parties, as shown by past
experiences, often have implications for democratic sustenance in the country.
Against the background of the forgoing, this paper examines the challenge of
deepening Nigeria’s democracy through viable political party institutions. What is the
general character of political parties in Nigeria? What challenge(s) does the nature
of political parties pose to democratic practice? To what extent can Nigerian political
parties strengthen the democratic fabric? These issues constitute critical ingredients
of concern in this work.
Political Parties and Democracy: Theoretical Insight
Political party is one of the genuses of intermediary groups in a political
system. Others include interest groups and pressure groups. Thus, the relationship
between viable political party and democratic governance is no doubt axiomatic.
Political parties are the lubricant of democracy and without which, democracy based
on the western model cannot function (Adele 2001:35). This is essentially because it
provides a credible means of harnessing the variety of public opinions essential in
sustaining a democratic society. While democracy rests on the informed and active
participation of the people, political party is a viable tool in this regard. This
perspective is shared by political scientists. As Anifowoshe (2004:59) remarked:
Democracy exists where the principal leaders of a
political system are selected by competitive elections in
which the bulk of the population have the opportunity to
participate. As a matter of fact, the condition of the
5
parties, in a political system, is the best possible
evidence of the nature of any democratic regime.
Implicit in the above statement is that a party’s level of institutionalization, cohesion
and social base, determines the extent of its viability and the extent to which it could
be said to be performing its functions in a democracy. In other words, viable political
parties contribute to democratic growth much as unviable ones may result in
democratic regression. Although there are myriad of definitions on what constitutes a
political party, yet they all revolve around electioneering and the control of
government. For instance, political parties has been conceived as an instrument for
contesting elections for the purpose of selecting candidates and party(ies) to
exercise political power (Yaqub 2002:122). This definition is in consonance with that
which sees political party as an organization, which is principally, absolutely and
actively involved, in the electoral process, in a democracy, with the major intent of
winning political power and controlling the government (Onuoha 2003:137). The
import of these definitions is that the major goal of political party is to capture and
control governmental powers. This it does through participation in electoral process
in which it fields candidates to contest for various posts. Yet, it must be stated that
while the major goal of a political party is to capture and maintain control over
personnel and policies of government, such at times may have to be done in
coalition with other party(ies). This is especially the case where electoral victory is
not based on ‘first past the post’ system or where a single party could not win the
minimum electoral seats necessary for it to constitute a government.
However,
beyond
fielding
candidates
for
elections
and
controlling
governmental apparatuses, political parties also perform other functions which on
6
the one hand set them aside from other organizations such as interest groups and
more importantly on the other hand, makes them sine qua non for democratic
development. These include; the task of political recruitment and training, education,
socialization, breeding consensus, providing alternative world views and political
communication among others (see Okoosi-simbine 2004:85-86; Yaqub 2002:112;
Aina 2002:10-12, Onuoha 2003:137). It is the extent to which parties are able to
discharge these functions that determine the extent of democratic growth in the
country. Important in carrying out the above functions is that parties especially in
culturally variegated societies such as Nigeria must eschew those intervening
variables that are likely to mar programmes and policies of the party such as
salience of ethnic, religious or other sectional interests. Where this is not avoided,
the tendency is that a party will find it considerably difficult in harnessing or
mobilizing mass support for democratic growth. The emphasis here is that parties
are formed not only to promote policies but also to secure social interests. It
therefore follows that parties must have broad social bases in order to be able to
aggregate interests rather than articulation of specific sectional ones.
Also central to democratic growth through the party system is party
institutionalization. That is, the process by which parties become established and
acquires value and enduring stability (Huttington, 1965:394). Although the extent of
party institutionalization varies with party systems the world over, it is usually
measured based on some factors such as party age, count of splits and mergers,
electoral stability, legislative stability and leadership change (Janda, 1993:167). Of
equal importance is party coherence, which has been defined as the degree of
7
congruence in the attitudes and behaviour of party members’ (Janda 1980:118;
1993:173). There is no gainsaying the fact that the degree of coherence among
party members bears direct relevance to party strength and stability. This is because
a strong and coherent party in terms of membership and structure is usually stronger
and coordinated both in articulating view and garnering electoral support than are
fragmented one. It is also the factor of coherence that enable parties to effectively
discharge the function of National integration which they are expected to perform
especially in plural societies.
It must be stressed that, while parties in the advanced countries of Europe
and America, are observed to have attained the status described above, those in the
developing countries tend to be a little far from it. In other words, political parties in
the developing countries cannot be ranked on equal scale with those of the
advanced countries in terms of viability of the institution. Hence, it could be reasoned
that the difference between the two worlds accounts for the different levels of
democratic growth between them (e.g. Nigeria and USA). Although Nigeria has
returned to democratic practice since 1999, yet there is a growing concern over the
sustenance of its democracy. These concerns obviously owe their origin to the
nature of political parties and party politics or activities in the country. Issues
surrounding this dilemma are examined next but before this, description of the
character and general tendencies of current political parties is essential.
8
Behaviour and Character of Nigerian Political Parties
Essentially, behaviour of political parties in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic is not too
fundamentally different from that of earlier Republics. Indeed, the character and
pattern of behaviour they exhibit owes much to their circumstance of origin and
operating environment. Prior to independence, political parties in Nigeria emerged
within the context of nationalist struggles for independence. The common desire to
put an end to colonial rule and achieve self government therefore reduced the
preponderant tendency of any segmental cleavage (Yaqub, 2002: 22). The certainty
and approach of independence however brought about a total change in the
operating context of the parties. Since new set of leaders are to emerge from among
Nigerians, party activities assumed a new dimension which till date has continued to
characterize Nigerian Political parties. Two matrices are implicit in this view. First is
that, there is an intense and ferocious struggle for power among the political parties.
This may be attributed to centrality of political power in the country access to which
determines access to other resources. Consequently, competition becomes so
intense that the ruling party will always want to maintain its hold on power just as the
other parties in opposition are ready to wrestle power from the ruling party
irrespective of what it takes. Perhaps this trend equally, usually inform the pattern of
alignment and re alignment that takes place between parties in the process of
electoral competition such as between the Alliance for Democracy (AD) and the All
Peoples’ Party (APP) in the 1999 presidential election and AD-PDP accord in the
south west during the 2003 general elections. In the same vein, the intense inter
party rivalry also to a large extent accounts for party’s mobilization of forces of
9
identity such as ethnicity, religion and other cleavage issues in order to gain
electoral advantage and, other electoral fraud among others.
With regard to the second matrix, there is within each party an intense
struggle for relevance, regional hegemony and exertion of overbearing influence on
party structures and machineries among party members. This tendency has been
the bane of party politics since Nigeria’s independence in 1960 (See, OkoosiSimbine, 2005; Tyoden, 2002: 12 - 14; Osaghae, 1998: 120 - 121). Interestingly, the
present Fourth Republic is not an exemption as several occurrences points in this
direction. For instance, the tactical refusal to register some known members of the
PDP including vice president Atiku Abubakar, at various wards during the party’s
recently concluded membership re registration exercise and, the decision of some
stalwarts of the PDP (including the former chairman, Audu Ogbe) to float new
political associations, Movement for the Defence of Democracy (MDD) and
Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD), with the intention of registering
them as political parties. Others include, personality clash between Jerry Useni and
Don Etiebet within the All Nigerian Peoples’ Party (ANPP) and Bisi Akande versus
Mojisola Akinfenwa in the AD (see, The Punch, August 12, 2003: 39; The Sun,
September 12, 2003; Thisday, January 14, 2006:6; Sunday Independent, January 1,
2006: A4 and Abatan 2006: B14).
What must be noted at this point is that, while the need to capture power by
all means and personal idiosyncrasies of party stalwarts underlie parties’ behaviour
in Nigeria, the situation has nonetheless been compounded by a self-serving and
pathological perception of politics and democratic practice by the politicians. In this
10
case, politics is seen as a means of amassing wealth and power for personal
advantage. Under such a scenario, ‘playing by the rules becomes an uncomfortable
restraint’ (Maduekwe, 2005) as the average politician responds only to his social,
political and economic impulses. Invariably therefore, political parties in Nigeria and
of course party activities are characterized by behavioural tendencies manifesting in
inter and intra party antagonisms, indiscipline and flagrant violation of party rules;
factionalism and lack of internal cohesion’ ideological emptiness of parties and a
dwindling hope of party institutionalization among others. All these, indeed,
constitutes critical issues and problems for sustainable democracy.
Political Parties and Sustainable Democracy in Nigeria: Issues and Problems
As noted earlier, political parties in Nigeria are a product of specific
environments, which often influence their structures, functions, and operations.
Nonetheless, they are expected, as elsewhere, to serve as lubricating agent for
sustainable democratic rule. Presently, however, there is, as Anifowoshe (2004:57)
noted, a growing public apprehension concerning the future of the sustainability of
Nigeria’s nascent democracy. Anifowoshe noted further that the growing
apprehension is predicated on the nature and intensity of party competition, which
had invariably engendered tremendous bickering, political uncertainties and disorder
in many parts of the country. The point here is that party politics in Nigeria has not
undergone any genuine transformation that is capable of strengthening the
democratic project.
11
Democracy is all about competition, bargaining and compromise. In a liberal
context, these are expected to be facilitated by the institution of political party.
However, it could be gleaned from the Nigerian situation that political parties are
usually more into ‘cat and mouse’ game. This is because, both at the level of inter
and intra party relations, the rules of the game are often never allowed to play itself
out. In the present democratic experience for instance, while the ruling party,
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has remained weary and critical of any move or
opinion expressed by other parties, so also are the non-governing parties reigning
invectives on the PDP government at every available opportunity (Muhammad,
2006: 208). Even at state level, inter party relations have been more confrontational
among party faithful leading, at times, to violent conflicts and wanton destruction of
lives and properties as witnessed in states such as Anambra, Kwara, Edo, Ekiti,
Rivers and Bornu (Human Rights Watch 2003; Sambo 2005). The confusion and
contradiction of party activities in Nigeria also plays itself out in the spate and
dimensions of intra party squabbles. For instance, among the leading parties (PDP,
ANPP and AD) there has been dissolution of party executives, suspension of party
stalwarts for anti-party activities, emergence of parallel executives and deflection of
party members among other manifestations of intra-party crisis. One of the worst
manifestations of such under the present administration is best exemplified in the
Anambra State saga where factions resorted to the use of various means and
strategies in their contestations for control of power in the state. The crises which
began to manifest since July 2003 saw a wanton display of anti-democratic
tendencies including adoption of the state governor, destruction of lives and
12
properties and even, using instrumentality of the police (Muhammad, 2006:207). In
underscoring the profound confusion that characterized Nigeria’s political terrain,
Anifowoshe (2004:57) noted that:
From inception of the restoration of civil rule in the Fourth
Republic, the political scene has witnessed frequent
discords, unresolved political issues, recriminations,
threats of impeachment of executives, treacheries,
flagrant breach of party rules, carpet-crossings, intercommunal rivalries and resurgence of factional cleavages
within parties, which have continued to threaten the
functioning of democracy in Nigeria.
In other words, courtesy of activities of the political parties, Nigeria’s current
democratic experience is not only characterized by uncertainties but as well, trapped
between democratic growth and regression. All these have continued to dim the
hope of sustainable democracy in Nigeria. But it must be stated that current
experiences with political parties in Nigeria are not only peculiar to the Fourth
Republic as it represents more of a carryover from the past republics. This is
because both the First and Second Republics in particular were also characterized
by series of anti-democratic activities such as inter and intra party squabbles,
political bigotry, party indiscipline, cross-carpeting among others – a trend which
ultimately led to the collapse of the earlier republics.
From what has been discussed, it has been revealed that essentially, parties
in Nigeria have not had the opportunity of been institutionalized and that may partly
account for the current travails of party politics in Nigeria. Prolonged years of military
rule and constant manipulation of the political process contributed immensely to this
development. For instance, political parties in the First Republic had their life
terminated following the coup of January 1966 while those of the Second Republic
13
existed for only about five years (1979-1983). The Third Republic was more of
parties dying at birth as none of them had a life span that extended beyond two
years. Although some parties of the present era may have transcended first phase of
the democratic era, 1999 - 2003, yet they are equally faced with the challenge of
institutionalization. As noted earlier in this work, party institutionalization could be
measured by factors such as party age, extent of fractionalization, legislative stability
and leadership change. However, the extent of polarization, leadership crises,
deflections and political vagrancy that characterized the present crop of parties
especially the leading PDP, ANPP and AD tempts one to conclude that: They are far
from institutionalization. Added to this is the rate of dissent by party stalwarts who in
their struggle for ascendancy and relevance are now floating new political
associations with the intent of transforming into political parties. Emergence of the
MDD and MRD championed mostly by dissatisfied members of the PDP are a case
in point in this regard (see The Punch, December 23, 2005:6; Saturday Independent,
December 10 2005: A3; Daily Trust November 21, 2005:2). The import of this
situation is that political parties in Nigeria may eventually remain a ‘child of
circumstance’ born strictly in response to the political interests of its big wigs rather
than advancement of democratic ethos.
Yet another factor working at variance with democratic growth in Nigeria
could be located in the weak party structures and lack of internal cohesion. Weak
structures of the current political parties no doubt inhibit the system from running
itself. This is because, it strips the parties of their autonomy defined in terms of ‘a
party’s structural independence from other institutions and organizations’ (Janda,
14
1980:91). Consequently, the control of party machinery and structures is determined
largely by the interest of a domineering caucus at any point in time rather than
established rules. Equally, there is no denying the fact that Nigerian political parties
are not internally cohesive. On the one hand, this may be explained by the fact that
these parties are composed of strange bedfellows. Thus, interests of the
amalgamating parties usually influence trend of relations. In a situation of divergence
of interests therefore, conflict becomes an inevitable occurrence. On the other hand,
one may look at the short gestation period of the parties as another factor that
affects party cohesion. The point is that between 1998 and 1999 when these parties
emerge, there was little or no time for the politicians to stay together and harmonize
their differences, ideas and thoughts before going for elections. As former President
Sheu Shagari had observed, the parties were created in matter of weeks and
prepared for election in matter of days (quoted in Tyoden, 2002). This factor partly
explains the series of intra-party rivalries and carpet-crossing that later characterized
party activities.
But
a
more
fundamental
problem,
which
inhibits
party
cohesion,
institutionalization and of course, deepening of democracy, lies in the ideological
emptiness of the parties. A front line politician, Chukwuemeka Ezeife, underscored
this fact by noting that:
From the beginning, we had wanted ideological parties.
That opportunity was ruined. We now go for winning,
winning only. No more ideology. We are playing survival
game. Our preference for the use of ideology to unite
Nigerians and present them with clear democratic choice
did not work (Quoted in Aina 2002:7).
15
The above statement no doubt gives credence to the view that Nigerian
political parties lack a definite ideological base that could propell a democratic
society. According to Okoosi-Simbine (2005:24), parties and their manifestoes need
to espouse the ideology on which they plan to run the government in order to give
the electorate a clear picture of where the country is heading to and to decide
whether or not to work in that direction. However, parties in Nigeria have never
espoused any definite ideology or put up manifestoes that present the citizens with a
choice of direction. Underscoring this ascertion, Okoosi-Simbine (2005:22) noted
that:
An overview of the manifestoes of political parties in Nigeria
shows that their objectives and strategies are not radically
different from one another in their planks and are all virtually
addressed to the same issues. For instance, the APP and
AD manifestoes are almost a carbon copy of each other with
the only difference discernible in them being the emphasis
that they give to the programmes articulated, or in a few
cases, the strategies for carrying out the objectives.
In this context, it is not likely that any party will be able to proffer an alternative
worldview for the electorate, which is essential in the deepening of democratic
practice. More importantly, due to lack of a clear-cut ideology, many politicians
behave like political bats changing party affiliation in response to the political fortune
of their group (Aina 2002:19).
In sum, Nigeria’s current democratic experience is caught up in the dilemma
of democratic renewal and regression. This flows from the series of occurrences
which revolves around viability of the current political parties. While it is true that
political parties are like piston in the engine of democratic practice, the extent to
which they acquire value and stability, party cohesiveness and development of a
16
coherent political doctrine are vital ingredients that make them viable element in
democratic growth and sustenance.
Recommendations and Conclusion
This paper has discussed the interplay between political parties and the
sustenance of democracy. Findings reveal that vibrant political parties lie at the heart
of democratic growth. In other words, the more viable the political parties are, the
more democracy is strengthened. In Nigeria however, there are ominous challenges,
which confront Nigerian political parties vis-à-vis democratic strengthening. Findings
reveal that political parties in Nigeria are yet constrained in discharging those
responsibilities which, place parties at the heart of democratic sustenance. As
revealed in the text, this reason is not far fetched from the peculiar nature of politics
and politicians in the country. Against this background, this paper recommends that
there is need for politicians to exercise restraint in the way politics is played and
allow party structures to develop according to the established rules. This would help
achieve internal cohesion and ensure party discipline. Equally, genuine political will
to restructure the political terrain is necessary on the part of policy makers while
actors must be willing and ready to make sacrifices and compromise in the course of
politicking. Where these are achieved, it is expected that political parties in Nigeria
will then be properly positioned to champion the course of democratic growth.
17
References
Abatan, T. (2006), ‘AD: Limping Along in Disunity’. Sunday Independent. Lagos,
January 1.
Adele, B. J. (2001), Political Parties and Democracy in Nigeria. Lagos. Ijede
Commercial Enterprises
Aina, A. D. (2002), Party Politics in Nigeria Under Obasanjo Administration.
Monograph Series No. 1, Department of Political Science and Sociology,
Babcock University, Illisha Remo, Nigeria.
Akinterinwa, B. (1997), ‘The 1993 Presidential Elections Imbroglio’ in Diamond,
Larry, Kirk-Greene, Anthony, A. and Oyediran, Oyeleye (eds.) Transition
without End: Nigerian Politics and Civil Society Under Babangida. Ibadan,
Nigeria: Vantage Publishers, pp. 278-306.
Anifowose, R. (2004), ‘Political Parties and Party System in the Fourth Republic of
Nigeria: Issues, Problems and Prospects’ in Olurode, Lai and Anifowose,
Remi (eds.) Issues in Nigeria’s 1999 General Elections. Lagos, Nigeria: John
West Publications Limited and Rebonik Publications Ltd, pp. 55 – 78.
Coleman, J.S. (1971), Nigeria: Background to Nationalism. Berkley: University of
California Press.
Hadenius, A. (1997), ‘Victory and Crisis: Introduction’ in Hedenius, Axel (ed.)
Democracy’s Victory and Its Crisis. London: Cambridge University Press, pp.
1-12.
Human Rights Watch (2003), Testing Democracy: Political Violence in Nigeria.
Online: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/nigeria/index.htm (accessed on May
3, 2005).
Huttington, S. (1965), ‘Political Development and Political Decay’. World Policies
Vol. 17, pp. 386-430.
Hyden, G. (1995), ‘Conjectures and Democratization’ in Olowu, Dele, Soromekun,
Kayode and Williams, Adebayo (eds) Governance and Democratization in
Nigeria. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd, pp. 49-64.
Isaac, J. C. (1998), Democracy in Dark Times. New York: Cornell University Press.
Janda, K. (1980), Political Parties: A Cross-National Survey. New York: The Free
Press.
18
Janda, K. (1993), ‘Comparative Political Parties: Research and Theory’ in Finifter,
Ada W. (ed.) Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. Washington DC:
American Political Science Association, pp. 163-191.
Joseph, R. (1991), Prebendal Politics in Nigeria: The Rise and Fall of the Second
Republic. Ibadan, Nigeria: UPL.
Maduekwe, O. (2005), Politics, Democracy and Intra Party Crises in Nigeria
Muhammad, A.A. (2006), ‘Reflections on the Victory and Crisis of Democracy’ in,
Saliu H. A. et.al (eds.), Democracy and Development in Nigeria, Vol. 1,
Conceptual Issues and Democratic Practice. Lagos, Nigeria: Concept
Publications limited. Pp 194 – 215
Okoosi-Simbine, A.T. (2004), ‘The Impact of More Parties on the Democratic Project’
in Saliu, Hassan A. (ed.) Nigeria Under Democratic Rule (1999-2003), Vol. 1,
Ibadan: UPL, pp. 85-102.
Okoosi-Simbine, A.T. (2005), ‘Political Vagrancy and Democratic Consolidation in
Nigeria’ in Momoh, A. and Onu, G. (eds.), Elections and Democratic
Consolidation in Nigeria. Nigeria Political Science Association, pp. 17-33.
Onuoha, B. (2003), ‘Political Parties and Elections: A Critical Review of Party
Manifestoes’ in, New Era Foundation with Support from Ford Foundation, The
Grassroots and Political Change in Nigeria. Lagos: Joe-Tolalu Association,
pp. 137-152.
Osaghae, E. E. (1998), The Crippled Giant: Nigeria Since Independent. London:
Hurst and Company
Saliu, H. A. (2004), ‘Dimensions of Democracy in Africa and the March to the Fourth
Republic in Nigeria’ in Saliu Hassan A. (ed.) Nigeria Under Democratic Rule
(1999-2003), Vol. I, Ibadan: UPL, pp. 3-9.
Sambo. Z.O. (2005), ‘Political Conflicts and Urban Violence in Ilorin’ in Saliu, H.A.
(ed.) Nigeria Under Democratic Rule (1999-2003) Vol. II, Ibadan: UPL.
Tyoden, S. G. (2002), ‘Inter and Intra Party Relations: Towards A More Stable Party
System in Nigeria’ The Constitution: A Journal of Constitutional Development.
Vol. 3 No. 1 September Pp 1-23
Ujo, A. A. (2000), Understanding Political Parties in Nigeria. Kaduna Nigeria:
Klamidas Publishers
Williams, A. (1995), ‘The Fictionalization of Democratic Struggles in Africa: The
Nigerian Experience’ in Olowu, Dele, Soromekun, Kayode and Williams,
19
Adebayo (eds.) Governance and Democratization in Nigeria. Ibadan:
Spectrum Books Ltd, pp. 65-67.
Yaqub, Nuhu (2002), ‘Political Parties in the Transition Process’ in Onuoha, Brown
and Fadakinte, M.M. (eds.) Transition Policies in Nigeria, 1970-1999. London:
Malthouse Press Limited, pp. 118-134.