Thoughts on governing Nigeria: On coalition and consensus politics

By LADIPO ADAMOLEKUN

All governments are coalitions. The choice is whether the coalition is within one party or between several.— The Economist, October 28, 1995.

Nigeria: Coalition Government for a Decade

Each time I reflect on the future political system for Nigeria, I feel that the overwhelming evidence is for a coalition government to succeed the military government. The Government and Opposition concept is not appropriate in our circumstances and we are not likely to be able to operate a one-party system. My thesis is that a coalition system falls somewhere between the two and suits our circumstances as a transitional system while we allow habits and values to form and eventually dictate which system we can operate. In fact, it may turn out that we operate a permanent coalition system.

A Federal Government composed of representatives from parties that have at least ten percent of all seats in parliament from more than two of the 12 states(this would translate into six of the current 36 states). Each state should be allowed to develop either a Government and Opposition system or a one-party system. Federal Government to have responsibility for guaranteeing rule of law and individual freedom.

Oxford, January 17th 1971

On Consensus and Coalition Government

…it was the competitive orientation given to both the parliamentary and presidential systems of government that was unsuited to the Nigerian milieu… therefore… competitive politics must be synthesized with consensus politics…What is called a synthesis of competitive and consensus politics can also be called coalition politics… progress towards a national consensus on governance is likely to be more assured under a coalition government than other types of government.

… The guidelines for coalition politics should not only focus on power sharing among the elite groups, it must also concern itself with the goals of national progress and unity. The task for preparing these guidelines could be entrusted to the (country’s) elite groups: the political elite (the former party leaders, legislators and executive functionaries), the military elite, the intelligentsia (academics, professionals and journalists), the traditional elite, and representatives of religious bodies, trade unions, women, students, and farmers’ organisations. The task of this body, which I have called the National consensus Assembly will consist of further revision of the 1979 Constitution and the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding which will spell out in clear terms how best to operate coalition politics in the Nigerian milieu… The issues that will deserve to be formally clarified include the following: the nature of the federal system, the maintenance of basic freedoms and the rule of law, the manner of ensuring effective citizen participation and, above all, the articulation of a national philosophy of development.

–Ladipo Adamolekun, The Fall of the Second Republic, Ibadan, Spectrum Books, 1985, pp. 97-100.

Advocacy for Coalition Politics

…There is strong evidence of a general tendency towards coalition politics in the country. Between 1952 and 1983, the country was governed by a grand coalition of the major political parties for nine years, a grand national coalition for almost 13 years under military rule, and a “limited coalition” for eight years. There was only a brief period of minority government (1981-1983). Although systematic comparative study of the governments established between 1952 and 1983 has been conducted, available evidence suggests that political tensions were most intense during periods of limited coalition and minority government(we exclude the exceptional circumstances that led to the civil war of July 1967 to January 1970). In other words, progress towards a national consensus on governance is likely to be more assured under a coalition government than under the other type of government [Government and Opposition].

(Regarding) the mechanics of establishing a viable coalition government… the rules of the political game should be written in such a way that only the coalition-minded politician can succeed. It should be possible for any number of political groups (parties) to stay out of the coalition government. The rules of the political game should protect their freedom (especially as sources of organised criticism) while ensuring that they cannot endanger the coalition government…

–Ladipo Adamolekun, Politics and Administration in Nigeria, Ibadan, Spectrum Books, 1986, p. 183.

On Consensus Politics

What is consensus politics? This is what I advocated for Nigeria in The Fall of the Second Republic (1985) and in the “Epilogue” to Politics and Administration in Nigeria (1986). While I made clear in both books that consensus politics means a categorical rejection of Government and Opposition in the Westminster tradition, I did not quite explicate what it would mean in concrete political terms. I regard the following as the distinguishing characteristics of consensus politics.

1. The fundamental justification for consensus politics is that there is broad agreement among the majority of opinion leaders across political party divides over the broad goals of society: national unity and security, economic and social progress, individual liberty, including freedom of the press and human rights. Even when the details of approaches to economic development canvassed by competing parties are compared, the areas of agreement are usually very significant. Of course, there would be differences over methods and, in a few cases, over strategy but acceptable compromises could be worked out.

2. Members of government would be drawn from two or more political parties who had competed in open, free, and fair elections. Normally, the parties concerned should control more than two-thirds of the seats in the legislature. The idea of consensus politics is compatible with all parties represented in the legislature agreeing to participate in running the government. The refusal of one or more parties to participate in government would mean that the consensus is somewhat limited but the incumbent government could still claim to be consensual to the extent that it leaves the door wide open to the other parties. If a party with a significant representation in the legislature insists on the tag of opposition, then, there is only a limited consensus and the party concerned should be left to operate freely but not to see itself as an alternative government.

3. For a consensus government to emerge, a pre-requisite is freedom of the press and a culture of open debate and tolerance of dissenting opinions. It is through the process of open debate and the free expression of diverse views on politics, economics and society that the broad agreement over fundamentals would emerge very clearly. Even those who choose to take “extremist” positions should be free to have their say at all times without any restrictions. The only permissible restrictions would be the maintenance of peace and national security with operational guidelines that are widely publicized.

4. An independent judiciary which guarantees the rule of law, regulating relationships among citizens and those between citizens and the state. Normally, there would be a Basic Law (Constitution) which enshrines both fundamental human rights and the independence of the judiciary in addition to specific provisions on the institutions of governance.

5. In a multi-religious society, consensus politics would only be practicable if the secularity of the state is enshrined in the Constitution.

These five distinguishing features of consensus politics would merit further elaboration and refinement.

– April 17th 1991

The Case for Coalition Governments

What is the basis of political party competition in the country today? There is neither a Progressive/Conservative divide nor a Left/Right divide – the most common distinction among competing parties in the majority of modern democratic politics. When the Action Congress refers to itself as a “Progressive” party, it implies that the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, is a “Conservative” party. And the advertised alliance between the AC and the All Nigerian People’s Party, ANPP, implies that the latter, too, is a progressive party. However, given the composition of the leadership groups of the three main parties and their antecedents – where they were in Babangida’s decreed two-party political arrangement and within the five parties that unanimously adopted maximum ruler Abacha as sole presidential candidate – it is difficult to meaningfully assign either the progressive or conservative tag to any of them.

The changing of political allegiances by many political actors among the three parties since mid-2006 further underscores this point. Equally revealing is the close to zero trade union experience of most of the gubernatorial candidates who claim to represent the Labour Party while the immediate past charismatic leader of the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, is an AC gubernatorial candidate.

It is against this background that one can confidently assert that the primary concern of the vast majority of our political actors is how best to win political power and use it to secure access to the available national resources. Ideology or principles are irrelevant and the mobilization of citizens for political participation is not an issue – party cards are purchased for them and their votes are to be obtained in exchange for ridiculous cash and/or food items. As in 1999 and 2003, whichever group wins control of the central government in 2007 is likely to proceed to adopt a zero-sum winners-take-all approach to governance. State governments that are controlled by parties that are different from the ruling party at the national level will be treated as “opposition” to be shut out of even constitution-guaranteed share of national resources, to the extent possible. In its magnanimity, the ruling party at the centre could select political actors from a few “opposition” parties to join the “mainstream” – to come to the table to “eat”!

Given the lack of significant differences in the policies and programmes in the different manifestoes that have now been released by the political parties, would it not be better for them to agree on coalition governments at both the central and state levels? This would mean allocating a percentage (25 – 33 percent?) of the positions in governments in proportion to the percentage of votes won by the different minority parties. This arrangement would need to be formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, agreed upon in advance by the leadership of the relevant parties. The MOU would, among other things, include a statement of the core principles, policies and programmes that the coalition governments will agree to implement. The threshold for participation in coalition government could be set at 25 percent of votes at the national level and 10 percent at the state level. Minority parties that would not wish to participate in coalition governments would be free to continue to mobilise support for principles and policies that are different from those of the parties involved in coalition governments. It is conceivable that one, two, or more election cycles down the line, such parties could win control of governments in some states.

It is noteworthy that some of the civilian governments at the national level from the 1950s to the mid-1960s were national or all-party coalition governments, that is, without an official “opposition”: a national government from 1952 to 1954; coalition of all three major parties from 1957 to 1959; and an all-party coalition from 1965 to January 1966.

Uses and dangers of coalition governments

A survey of governmental systems in modern states would show that a government and opposition system only functions smoothly where there is a national consensus on core values and societal goals (for example, Britain, France and Germany) in contrast to countries that are characterised by deep ethnic, racial, religious and linguistic divides which tend to opt for coalition governments (for example, Austria, Belgium and Switzerland). The countries concerned have, through coalition governments, enjoyed peace, security, and good development performance over many decades.

Of course, there are occasional tensions and crises within coalition governments but they get resolved through changes among majority/minority partners. It is also pertinent to mention that countries committed to a government and opposition system establish coalition (national) governments comprising all major parties during periods of national emergency like the depression years of the 1930s and during the Second World War years and the immediate post-War years (for example, Britain and France for varying periods).

In Nigeria, where a “civilianized” president who endlessly affirms his total commitment to national unity is also a champion of “do-or-die” elections, a government and opposition system cannot function smoothly. It is significant that the entire leadership of the PDP has echoed the “do-or-die” mantra. For the president and other PDP leaders, all the other parties are “enemies” to be defeated by every means possible. Wouldn’t a formal adoption of multi-party coalition constitute a better alternative to “do-or-die” politics in a context in which party policies and programmes are very similar? As was the case in 1957 when speeding up the decolonisation process was declared a national emergency that a national (coalition) government had to tackle, the drive towards a prosperous Nigeria by 2020 could also be declared a national emergency that three successive coalition governments over a 12-year period might help us accomplish.

One obvious danger of opting for coalition governments in the prevailing circumstances in Nigeria is the almost inevitable emphasis on the politics of sharing spoils of office among the political elites (“sharing the national cake”) to the neglect of growing the economy and fighting poverty. Although there was no alternation between government and opposition at the regional levels in the 1950s and early 1960s, political competition was real (for example, AG majority versus NCNC minority in Western Region and NPC majority versus NEPU minority in Northern Nigeria) and this helped ensure grassroots political mobilization, some progress in the apprenticeship to democratic politics, and fairly decent development performance. Therefore, states or geopolitical zones in which there is broad consensus on core societal values, goals and objectives could, if they wish, operate a government and opposition system.

Post-Script – Comparative Note: To end the protracted civil war in Cote d’Ivoire, the two main protagonists, incumbent president Gbagbo and the leader of the breakaway northern part of the country, have agreed on a national (coalition) government. The latter has become the country’s prime minister. This “solution” is likely to prove more effective than the post-civil war government and opposition system that is already collapsing in the Democratic Republic of Congo after less than one year of its adoption

 –Ladipo Adamolekun, Vanguard, April 4, 2007.

The post Thoughts on governing Nigeria: On coalition and consensus politics appeared first on Vanguard News.