By General Olusegun Obasanjo

In 1979, we refrained from decreeing a one-party or two-party system for Nigeria for three main reasons. Firstly, it would have amounted to a major amendment to the constitutional draft as presented by the Constituent Assembly, and we had already decided against making substantial changes. Secondly, a two-party system would likely have ended in a geographical division, exacerbating one of our most persistent tensions, the North-South dichotomy superimposed on religious divisions and intolerance and thereby increasing instability. Thirdly, we believed then that such determination should come through evolution and not through legislation.

Coincidentally, we were beginning on such an evolutionary course when out of some fifty-two applications, only five parties satisfied the conditions for registration in 1979; after the 1983 elections only four parties remained effective. Predictably, if we had conducted two more elections without interruption, I could foresee one or at most two parties remaining active by 1991. There are bound to be arguments for and against that evolutionary process taking into account the practice on both sides of the political divide. Much as I expect greater decorum and morality in such a dynamic political development, it remains a testimony to the slowly converging process of our polity.

In essence my present suggestion that we adopt a one-party system is very much in consonance with a possible and logical outcome of our political development. All I am saying is that we give nature and history a gentle push in the right direction. This appears to be the only procedural mechanism through which we can transcend the divisive and centrifugal forces tearing us apart and diverting our attention from the more monumental task of integration and nation building.

For it is within such a purview that ultimate unity is always to be hoped for the subordination of sectional opinions to the criteria of rationality. In some countries, it seems to me that their one-party structure has been responsible for the enduring political and governmental continuity they are enjoying. It has also enabled them to move along a path of harmony, political stability, political unanimity and unity of purpose with a durable structure.

I say all these, fully aware of the disinclination of the supporters of Western style democracy to see any virtue in having fewer than two political parties. In the same vein, I am aware of the abuses of the one party regime in Africa, Asia and the rest of the world. For instance I am aware that the co-optation of various elements into the ruling organisation has not necessarily erased the differentiation that sustained opposing groups in the first place. Again that the rewards of power have become so great that there is an increasing competition among even the most faithful lieutenants for the uppermost positions.

Fundamental policies and objectives and dramatic (but peaceful) change of our political dramatis personae. The idea of having a one party is confronted with non-institutionalised, overlapping and shifting oppositions that do not really perform the role of presenting clear cut alternative policies to the electorate. Even then, I want to insist that these functions thought to be the traditional preserve of an opposition party - that of proposing alternative policies, criticising the government etc - can be found within the one-party regime.

Multi-party bickering is definitely a luxury we cannot afford. Our discussion so far has shown that reducing democratic practice to the operation of two parties is wrong. The essential ingredient of democracy is freedom and the provision of choices for the people. Crucial for me is that a democratic setting must involve a choice on personalities and a choice of programmes, fundamental human rights and obligation as well as freedom of expression.

The Greeks that bestowed democracy on the world, did practise it without political parties. Although we have come a long way from the days of the Greek City States, blind allegiance to a doctrine that is incongruent with our existential reality is to say the least emasculating.
With the single party system, mass mobilisation of the masses who have been held down and crippled by years of degrading oppression and servitude can be done without the inhibitions of ethnic jingoism.

Corruption would be seen for what it is and will not be hidden behind the thin spectre of ethnicity. Once all of us belong to the same party the idea of whipping up ethnic sentiments in the process of electoral competition would become a faux-pas. The morbid and near-pathological fear people have for one-party system is the usually orchestrated tendency to degenerate into a dictatorial cum authoritarian arrangement. I am convinced that the possibilities of the unsavoury trend of having budding aspirants waiting for dead men’s shoes is more doubly debilitating.

Once we have a settled periodic, voluntary and peaceful change, we can build up a stock of experienced men and women in public affairs who can continue to make contribution in other sectors of our national life and serve as our strategic reserve of resource materials in times of national need. I am sure that if we had got three or four men of such vintage who could have brought their collective wisdom, experience and influence to bear on the situation, we would have avoided the scourge and tragedy of the civil war.

Again our goal as the most populous black nation in the world should be that of bestowing on the world a functioning democracy carved around a unity of purpose, one that imbues a sense of participation that allows people to communicate with government and the government with them. I am talking about the democratisation of the political processes. i.e. participatory democracy in the real sense of the word.

•This article was published in the 27 February 1989 edition of Newswatch