It is unfortunate that the first military intervention of 15 January, 1966, by prohibiting the political parties of colonial times and the first republic tore apart the cloak of political socialisation and has subsequently prevented two generations from understanding how political parties are supposed to be structured, operated and driven. The twists and turns of the military handover to civil rule, of 1979, in reality led to the emergence of a hurriedly cobbled together electoral special purpose vehicles who are only now by a natural process of evolution, transforming into real political parties in the sense that would have been incompatible with the initial military oversight.
Democratic centralism is the propelling mechanism upon which modern party system is based and for over a hundred and fifty years, much like the separation of powers is the bedrock of democracy. To be succinct, anything else by deduction and indeed in commonsense will be a recipe for indiscipline leading to anarchy and the party’s reason for existence. The subordination of the interests of individuals, groups and factional interests to that of the overall collective interests of the party as a whole is therefore the lubricant of the modern political party. Overall, it leads to greater accountability and provides a mechanism for genuine oversight and if all else fails, the right of recall, the ultimate sanction and corrective mechanism.
In Nigeria’s political history over the past seventy years, it has been a perennial issue. It led in the nineteen forties to the well recorded turbulence in the pioneering anti-colonial Nigeria Youth Movement. In the nineteen fifties the interpretation of party supremacy in the NCNC led to a faction led by Dr K.O. Mbadiwe breaking away. The eventual reconciliation was cemented on the firm acceptance of the efficacy of the principle of democratic centralism by the reuniting factions and tendencies. The defining momentum for the supremacy of democratic centralism in Nigeria is of course, the party convention of the Action Group in Jos. The issue was straightforward, the necessity of the regional government controlled by the Action Group to be in alignment with the expressed wishes of the membership of the party as interpreted by the elected organs of the party. The rest is history.
ALSO READ: Ekiti: NGF will miss Fayose’s contributions
Democratic centralism and the expressed position of the membership of a political party cannot be sensibly translated through the anti-democratic invention of military rule – election by delegates. This mechanism is a reflection of the unitarist mindset of the military; it is inevitably propelled by corruption in which a handful of delegates are up for sale to the highest bidder. Using this framework, the members of the party, those who conscientiously build the party by attending party meetings, sustain it by paying their dues and doing the hard work of mobilisation as well as logistics coordination, are frozen out. Inevitably they are marginalised and become in essence extras in someone else’s movie. This is not the way in which modern political parties are operated. The party activists must control the party. Through this mechanism of common ownership, their concerns and interests will become paramount. The candidates of the party must be chosen by them and must reflect their wishes and desires. Two decades after the exit of military rule and the reinstatement of democracy is more than enough to reinstate the control of the party by the membership. It is unacceptable that this is just happening; it must now become the conventional wisdom as well as the entrenched practice.
In many instances in the recent past, Osun has broken the mould; the approval of the national executive of the APC is yet another path breaking move which must be institutionalised. The strength of a democracy is best reflected in the resilience and the entrenchment of a democratic framework in the operations of its constituent political parties. Through democratically operated political parties, the culture of mass participation and communal ownership become entrenched in the polity. Mass participation acts as a bulwark for democracy, this should be of great importance to a country which has gone through the debilitating effects of military rule. In this way, mass participation through the trajectories of political parties anchored on distinct philosophical positions becomes the bulwark and a key line of defense against any anti-constitutional move. We have to provide solid lines in the defence of our democracy.
What is going to happen in Osun state is a reinstatement of the central ethos of mass participation which is so central to the health and vigour of a democracy. A democratic spring is on course in Osun, it should be applauded and worthy of emulation.
Ademiluyi and Akinola write from Osogbo.
and then