THE CONSEQUENCES OF HANDING OVER POWER TO GOVERNMENT FROM A DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTY TO ANOTHER

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Change

Change involves movement from one system of operations to a different system which could be for good or for bad. Political change on the other hand entails a departure from the former political order to a new one which is expected to better the lives of the people or worsen the existing condition. Regarding the relationship between democratic consolidation and social change, Morlino (1989) argued that stability in democracies was determined by the behavior of the political elites and non-political elites, i.e. the degree of commitment of elites with the maintenance of the political regime of representative democracy. A crucial theoretical contribution to the concept of “consolidation of democracy” came up from Linz & Stepan (1996), who claimed that modern consolidated democracies do necessarily require the acceptance of a series of rules, institutions and regulations, socially and politically constructed and accepted, which introduced the tension among political economy and democratic theory, because not always political and economic incentives are socially accepted. Thus, change as used in this work refers to the withdrawal of political support in the form of votes by the electorates in Nigeria from the ruling party, the PDP and transfer of the same to the major opposition party, the APC, possibly as a result of the frustration suffered by them under the PDP over the years since 1999. This change was however effected with much expectation on the APC to deliver to them the dividends of good governance driven by democratic principles.

Governance

Governance involves the entire processes and methods adopted by a government in managing the resources of a society in order to address socio-economic and political challenges in the polity and achieve the national interest of the society or state. According to Kaufmann (2005:82), governance embodies “the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised for the common good”.The concept of ‘governance’ came into use with the inception of globalization, “reflecting the fragmentation of political authority among public and private actors on multiple levels of governance – national, sub-national and international – which accompanies globalization” (Hänggi, 2003). Thus, governance being more encompassing than government; aids in understanding the complex reality of the contemporary world in which governments remain the central actors in both domestic and international relations though they are more often seen to share authority with non-state actors on multiple levels of interaction. The term ‘governance’ became popular in debate on the development crisis in Africa with the World Bank’s description of the African problem as “a crisis of governance” (Aiyede, 2001). The Bank attributes Africa’s crisis to the lack of countervailing power, which has enabled state officials in many countries to serve their interests without fear of being called to account. Consequently, because politics is personalized, patronage becomes essential to power as leadership assumes broad discretionary authority and loses its legitimacy. Information is controlled, and voluntary associations are co-opted or disbanded. The environment cannot readily support a dynamic economy (World Bank, 1989). Kaufman, Kraay & Zoido-Lobaton (1999:1) construed governance as “the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes (1) the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced, (2) the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies, and the respect of citizens and the state for institutions that govern economic and social interactions amongst them. For the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Global Human Development Report 2002, governance assumes that institutions, rules and political processes play a big role in whether economies grow, children go to school whether human development moves forward or backward. Governance is purposeful, the goal being human development. In this regard governance seeks institutions and rules that ensure that human rights are protected, promote wider participation in the institutions and rules that affect people’s lives in order to achieve more equitable economic and social outcomes (UNDP, 2002).

Democracy

Democracy is essentially a system of government in which the people control decision making. It is a system of government that ensures that power actually belongs to the people (Omotola 2006). According to Schumpeter democracy entails “institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions, which realizes the common good by making the people decide issues through the election of individuals, who are to assembly in order to carry out its will” (in Omotola 2006:27). It is an “institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the peoples vote” (Omotola 2006:27). Democracy therefore from the perspective of this paper is viewed as a governmental process which encompasses the competitiveness for power in order to control political decisions in an atmosphere where civil liberties are exercised.

Political Parties

Political parties may be defined by their common aim. They seek political power either singly or in cooperation with other political parties. In this wise, Schumpeter has opined; the first and foremost aim of each political party is to prevail over the others in order to get into power or to stay in it” (Schumpeter 1961: 279). The distinguishing factor from other groups in a political system is this goal of attaining and/or maintaining political power. Adigun Agbaje has identified three characteristics that distinguish political parties from other seemingly similarly constituted organizations. These are; - It is a label in the minds of its members and the wider public especially the electorate. - It is an organization that recruits and campaigns for candidates seeking election and selection into public political office. - It is a set of leaders who try to organize and control the legislative and executive branches of government (Agbaje 1999:195). The conception of this paper therefore is that political parties are the political structures and organizations through which people seek political offices especially in a democratic setting.

Election/Representation

Election as we have hinted is a major aspect of democracy. Elections, broadly conceived, refer to the process of elite selection by the mass of the population in any given political system. Although controversy rages among political thinkers about the nature of representation, there is one point of universal agreement; the representation process is intrinsically linked to elections and voting. Political representation is implicit in the very idea of constitutional government and elections are essential to the functioning of a truly representative government. Representatives, acting on behalf of the electorate make the legislative and executive decisions that voter in the aggregate could not possibly make for themselves, considering the sheer numbers of people involved (Anifowose 2003). The link between elections and democracy should be clear from the above “for thus far, no superior method has been evolved for selecting the leadership of a democratically ruled society”. (Ojo 2007:6). As important as elections are in a democracy, it is important to note that they do not always lead to representation. This is to the extent that the incidence of fraud may characterize certain elections such that even when the people come out to vote, their votes do not count. Election rigging and other fraudulent electoral practices frustrate the democratic aspirations of citizens who have voted or would have voted into office someone else other than the eventual winner.

The Nexus between Political Parties and Representation

Democracy is about participation and representation. Participation is the extent to which individual members of society take part or get involved in the activities in their societies. Representation on the other hand, refers to the process by which people get chosen to act in the interest of the community or sectors thereof In modern day where the dominant form of democracy is indirect or representative democracy, political parties are the principal mechanism for ensuring citizen participation and representation in public policy (Agbaje 2005), and in fact through which individuals share the democratic values. Thus, a political party is an organized group of individuals who share similar political beliefs, opinions, principles, aspirations and interest with the sole aim of capturing political power and exercising it through the formation of government. In democracies, a political party is “a more or less permanent institution with the goal of aggregating interests, presenting candidates for elections with the purpose of controlling governments and representing such interests in government. It is thus a major vehicle for enhancing participation in governance” (Olarinmoye 2008:67). Political parties therefore, are saddled with the responsibility of recruiting competent individuals for political leadership through periodic elections, educating the electorate through political rallies and dissemination of information about government policies as well as serving as a vehicle for the articulation and aggregation of the interests of people. Thus, they serve as the pivot upon which the entire political process revolves. In other words, there can be no meaningful democracy without a properly functioning political party system. It is obvious therefore, that political parties constitute the heart of democracy. The more vigorous and healthy they are the better assured is the health of the democratic process (Agbaje 1998). It is therefore difficult to imagine any modern democracy without political parties as they are the connecting links between diverse groups of peoples and governments. (Olarinmoye 2008). In this paper, we argue that as important as political parties are to democracy in theory the activities of political parties in Nigeria especially the antics of the dominant Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has not made for effective political representation in the country.In the discussion that follows this paper examines four variables which have in tandem with the activities of political parties led to a representation deficit especially in Nigeria’s fourth republic. These factors have been used by the dominant PDP to deprive the majority of Nigerians representation.

Theorizing Democracy, Governance and Change

Democracy according to Adamolekun (2000) is an idea targeted at enhancing a sound and egalitarian society through an integrated effort of the masses towards a better society. Schumpeper (1942) defined it as a method by which decision making is transferred to individuals who have gained power in a competitive struggle for the votes of the citizens. Dahl (1989:221) postulated the essential ingredients for democracy to function which includes: a. High level of civil liberties b. Political Pluralism (extensive competition by contestants including individuals, groups or parties for government) and c. Political participation that provides the choice of the electorates to select candidates in free and fair elections. Elaigwu (2004) also presented five important characteristics of democracy. The first has to do with the locus of authority in a democratic polity. For him, political authority originates from the people. Thus, any authority that does not emanate from the people’s consent is not democratic. The second is that as a system of rule democracy must be based on the rule of law which implies that the application or enforcement of law cannot be arbitrary, hence there are specified limits to power and how it can be used. The third characteristic of democracy is about the legitimacy of the polity which the leader has to derive from the people. The leader must also lead according to the will of the people and in their interest. The fourth characteristic of democracy, according to Elaigwu (2004), is the question of choice of the people. The people should have a right to choose their leaders willingly and not by coercion or deceit and change of leadership ought to be effected regularly through elections. Lastly is the issue of transparency and accountability. Political leaders must also be “held accountable for their actions as representatives of the people who are trusted with power to achieve certain ends” (Elaigwu, 2004:67). The import of all these is that democracy is a principle of governance which recognizes the people as its centre piece and whose interest has to be the centre of every decision making and governance in the society and state. Governance as a concept has gained popularity as nations and international institutions seek better approaches to enhance the role of government by making it more transparent, accountable, responsive and responsible to the constituencies. Rhodes (1996:652) posits that “Governance signifies a change in the meaning of government, referring to new processes of governing; or changed conditions of ordered rule; or new methods by which society is governed". Thus, the term governance emanated as a result of the desire to bring about change in the society and a departure from the antiquated methods and in turn bring about positive transformation of human lives. It captures a "shift" in thinking that suggest that authority is institutionalized, or at least can be institutionalized in different spheres, and by implication these arenas can compete, bargain, or coordinate among themselves or ignore each other (Aiyede, 2001).Thus, it is expected that the ruling party in the country, in the spirit of democracy and the governance that forms its framework, will be able to accommodate the opposition parties and create a level playing ground for healthy competition and bargaining between and among them as they jostle for political positions in order to bring about the necessary change in Nigeria. Government is the steer for change through governance and democracy recognizes the role of both the government and the people in governance and bringing about any desired change. Though, every nation has embraced the principle of democracy because it is the only mechanism through which the interest, well being, rights and lives of the citizenry could be unquestionably protected and guaranteed. However, its practice has taken different dimensions across the globe. In developing nations for example, it has been characterized with godfatherism, party politics, tribal and religious politics and money-bag-politics.

PDP, Ideological and Organizational Flux

The emergence of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) can be traced to different angles of conglomeration of political gladiators who continue to seek relevance and capture of the state in Nigeria prior to 1999 and afterwards. The first groups were those who could not register their relevance during the regime of General Sani Abacha at the time of the self- succession project initiated by the Abacha regime because Abacha never gave room for political parties to thrive. Thus, they connived and petitioned the self-succession bid through the law court. This group was known as G-34 Committee as the petition was signed by 34 men. The second group was those politicians who were members of the former National Party of Nigeria (NPN). This group was neither opposed to the self-succession of General Abacha nor part of his alliance. They called themselves All Nigeria Congress and led by Chief S.B. Awoniyi. The third group was the followers of Late General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua as the Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM) among which were Chief Tony Anenih and Alhaji Abubakar Atiku. The last group was those who addressed themselves as social democrats with the nomenclature, Social Progressive Party (SPP). This group was the politicians in the PDP today who are yet to find their feet in the party because their impact has not been felt by the party (Omoruyi, 2001).The political objective of the party include, to seek political power for the purpose of protecting the territorial integrity of Nigeria and promoting the security, safety, welfare of all Nigerians; to promote and establish political stability in Nigeria and foster national unity and integration; to provide good governance that ensures probity and participatory democracy; to offer equal opportunities to hold the highest political, military, bureaucratic and judicial offices in the country to all citizens; and to provide the political environment that is conducive to economic growth and national development through private initiative and free enterprise (http://pdpimostate.org/manifest.aspx). On ideological composition of the party, the PDP has been perceived and described as a party lacking any ideology since its actions and decisions on national issues are not seen to lean towards any identified ideology. Domingo & Nwankwo (2010:5) rightly pointed out that the People’s Democratic Party does not portray a party with strong ideological identity, but has been described as a “centrist” party that “operates more as a catch all organization that houses a range of political positions”. Rather the party’s strength over time was based on its incumbency and the access to resources and power that accompany its incumbent status.

Opposition Parties: Consistency, Intellectual and Ideological Foundations, Consolidation and Drive.

The journey to the fourth republic and the current state of political parties in Nigeria started long since before Nigeria’s independence. However, the fourth republic was ushered in by five registered political parties by General Sani Abacha in 1998 in his self-succession bid. The parties include: the Congress for National Consensus (CNC); Democratic Party of Nigeria (DPN); the Grass root Democratic Movement (GDM); the National Conscience Party of Nigeria (NCPN); and the United Nigerian Congress Party (UNCP). These parties adopted Abacha as their consensus candidate for the elections in that year. They were however short- lived by the death of Abacha and their dissolution by General Abubakar Abdulsalam administration in the restarted transition programme to the fourth republic. Following the dissolution of the five political parties, nine political associations were provisionally registered to contest the local government elections for chairman and counsellors in December 1998. Three out of these political associations were eventually registered as political parties after the local government elections based on their performance. The parties include: All People Party (APP), Alliance for Democracy (AD), and the Peoples Democracy Party (PDP). These three parties went on to contest the Presidential, Governorship, States and National Assemblies elections in 1999 ushering in the fourth republic in Nigeria. The PDP won the general elections in 1999 and took control of power in the country. The number of political parties in Nigeria before the 2003 general elections increased to 30 as INEC registered additional twenty seven (27) more political parties. All these parties became opposition parties to the PDP at the national level and many of the states where the PDP controlled. They however, formed a weak opposition as they struggled to survive. Only sixteen of them fielded presidential candidates at the 2003 general elections. Before the 2007 elections, 50 political parties had already been registered following the multi-party system being practiced in the country. Some of the new political parties were made of members of the PDP who were discontented with the operation method of the party. The present day APC which emerged from the transformation and merger of many political parties became the major opposition party from 2013 after its formation and registration. It formed a formidable opposition and garnered strength and support of the people by buying into the weakness of the ruling party, the PDP, reminding the people of these weaknesses and promising them a change if they are given the opportunity by voting for them during the elections. This strategy worked out as the APC eventually has become the ruling party while the PDP has become the opposition party.

Nigeria 2015 General Election and Change

Elections are very essential ingredient of democracy. They also reinforce the citizens’ democratic rights to choose their leaders and in turn contribute to the policy process. Elections over the years in Nigeria have been marred by violence and massive rigging in which the candidates contesting for political posts, their parties and the Election Management Bodies collaborate in this nefarious act. Nigerians at home and in Diaspora as well as foreign governments and international organizations have called on Nigeria to make stringent reforms on her electoral system in order to curb this ugly trend. Unfortunately, former President Obasanjo could not effect this reform. However, late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua took the bull by the horns when he stated before Nigerians that the general election that brought him into the presidential seat in 2007 was marred with fraud. This declaration was followed by his setting up of a panel headed by former chief justice of the federation, Mohammed Lawal Uwais to advise the government on ways to strengthen the country’s electoral processes. Yar’Adua could not implement the recommendations of the panel as a result of ill and his subsequent tragic death. However, the Goodluck Jonathan administration that succeeded Yar’Adua’s government eventually continued the reform process and began implementing parts of the reform, which led to some improvements in the conduct of the 2011 general elections. The INEC was established by section 153 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution. Its responsibility include among others organizing referendums and elections for president, vice president, state governors and deputy governors, and the Nigerian Senate and House of Representatives. The reform of INEC and the electoral system in Nigeria kicked off in the run-up to the 2011 general elections under the leadership of Professor Attahiru Jega, who was also a member of the Uwais Panel. Part of the reform initiatives taken by INEC included the open and transparent review of the voter register and the formalization of the appointment of ad hoc staff through a memorandum of understanding with the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC). With this, the INEC revised its procedures for the recruitment, training, retraining and deployment of regular and ad hoc staff. For the elections, it adopted a remodified open secret ballot system and deployed a direct data capture machine in each polling station (INEC, 2012: v in IDEA, 2015:62).It also ensured the adoption of new security measures for protecting ballot papers and ballot boxes, such as colour-coding and serial numbering. New result collation and transition systems were also adopted, while it developed a revised framework for the collation and return of results (IDEA, 2015). This effort, of course had great positive impact on the 2011 general elections as the elections became more transparent and credible with less post electoral litigations. The reform however continued after the 2011 elections in preparation for the 2015 general elections. INEC first took stock of events that transpired during the 2011 elections. It went further to use that to plan for the 2015 elections ensuring that the mistakes of the 2011 elections are corrected. This was finally followed by the execution of the plan in 2015 elections. First, INEC inaugurated in August 2011, a committee of experts on election issues, named the Registration and Election Review Committee (RERC) which came out with several guidelines and recommendations for proper conduct of future elections. The planning phase was conducted in the form of retreats, brainstorming sessions and workshops, and it took place horizontally and vertically within the institution, as well as among stakeholders in the electoral process. This process led to the articulation of a strategic plan (INEC, 2012 in IDEA, 2015). It embarked on the internal reorganization, rationalization and consolidation of its departments from 26 to nine (Punch, 2013a in IDEA, 2015). The commission recruited 1,500 new staff in 2012 (Vanguard, 2013) and embarked on aggressive training for its existing personnel, including BRIDGE training for its staff in collaboration with the EU, International IDEA and the UN Development Programme’s (UNDP’s) Democratic Governance for Development (DGD) Programme (IDEA, 2015). However, recruitment of both permanent and adhoc staff continued till weeks before the 2015 general elections. The implementation phase included update of the voters register, education of voters, developing biometric- chip-based permanent voter card, introduction of card readers for verification of the cards, capture of voters’ fingerprint and photograph. These measures were taken to prevent all sorts of malpractices that had taken place in past elections.

APC, their Master Plan and Determination for Change

The All Progressive Congress Party (APC) was formed in February 2013, as a result of an alliance by Nigeria's four biggest opposition parties - the Action Congress of Nigeria(ACN), the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), and a faction of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) - merged to take on the People's Democratic Party (PDP). The resolution was signed by Tom Ikimi, who represented the ACN (action Congress of Nigeria); Senator Annie Okonkwo on behalf of the APGA (All Progressives Grand Alliance); former governor of Kano State, Mallam Ibrahim Shekarau, the Chairman of ANPP's Merger Committee; and Garba Sadi, the Chairman of CPC's (Congress for Progressive Change) Merger Committee (http://apc.com.ng/index.php/about-apc). It must be stated, however, that the APC was formed in anticipation of the 2015 general elections in Nigeria. The aim of the founders was to form a formidable opposition party that will compete strongly with the PDP which was the ruling party and the only seemingly political party in the country even though the country operated a multi-party system. The majority of the APC's base of political support is in south-western Nigeria and the Northern Nigeria, which are dominated by the country's largest ethnic groups, the Yoruba and the Hausa-Fulani, respectively. Following from its composition, the APC is generally considered to be a center-left political party that favours controlled market or regulated market economic policies, and a strong and active role for government regulation. A substantial number of its political leaders are followers of or politicians who subscribe to the social democratic political philosophy of Obafemi Awolowo and the socialist and anti-class views of Aminu Kano. Despite the party’s domination by pro-devolution politicians like Atiku Abubakar, Bola Tinubu and Chief Akande, the party’s presidential bearer and the CPC wing is less inclined to federalism and this basic tension is somewhat of ideological strange bed fellows accommodated in context of desire to win and combine forces in the 2015 election cycle. On the Speedboat mentality of the APC, let us first explain what we mean by speedboat. The idea of the speedboat as used here is derived from the speedboat used by sea travelers and even pirates which runs at a very high speed when compared to a ship or canoe. The President of the United States of America, Obama (2009) in a press conference capping his first one hundred days in office, remarked that the “‘ship of state’ is an ocean liner, not a speedboat,” and that even a small shift in direction could have far-reaching consequences even a decade or two later (Li and Lee, 2009). Again, speaking on the Hungarian economy, Orbán, the Hungarian Prime Minister insisted that the Hungarian economy is a “speedboat” that is unlike one of the “sluggish European Union cruisers” (Policy Solutions, 2011). The picture painted here by Orbán is a comparison between a fast moving economy depicted by‘speedboat’ and a slow moving economy depicted by ‘Union cruisers’. The same analogy applies to the speech made by Barack Obama as stated above. Applying the speedboat as a theoretical model, we intend to use this to portray the mentality and attitude of the APC as a political party and its members which contributed to their success in the 2015 general elections. Unlike the PDP that believed in the power of coercion, intimidation and disregard for the electorates, the APC went down the grassroot without leaving any stone unturned. They embarked on the political campaigns with full force of all the strategies and arsenal in their possession singing the message of ‘change’ in the ears of the electorates in Nigeria without wavering. Thus, the electorates saw the determination in them to win the election and to bring about the desired change. Though the electorates were skeptical of the ability of the party to deliver the change based on the antecedents of the key actors in the party, the approach and determination of the party made the electorates vote massively for the party and thereby giving them the votes that swept the PDP off its feet in the 2015 general elections.

Governance and Expectation of Nigerians

This section explains briefly the nature of governance in Nigeria before the arrival of the APC and the expectations of Nigerians now that the APC is in power. The process and quality of policy formulation and implementation are critical elements in determining the level of engagement of the population and measuring the quality of governance of the society (Natufe, 2006). The degree of citizens’ participation in this process is determined by the level of their education and political consciousness, as well as on the access to political elites and effective communication. This goes a long way to portray the nature of democratic governance in that state. Irrespective of the impact of donor agencies on policies and their contributions to policy failures, the success of good governance in any country depends largely on the leadership skills of the elected leaders and their attitude towards democratic practice. Any lover of democracy who lives in Nigeria is aware of the nature of governance in the country since 1999. A personal experience and discussions with members of the public in the country shows that Nigerians have been frustrated given the state of governance at the different levels of government. The citizens are baffled by the over the ineffective political institutions in the country and the lack of participatory democracy in the country. The low rate of development indices has been worrying to Nigerians. Though Nigeria has often been acclaimed one of the fast developing economies, the effect of these have not been felt by Nigerians as the standard of living has continued to deteriorate since 1999. The unemployment rate has continued to skyrocket by the day; high crime rate, and corruption by those entrusted with governance has been the order of the day to the disenchantment of Nigerians. For instance, unemployment has risen from 11.9% in 2005 to 24.90% in 2012 (Alumona & Odigbo, 2015). Politics in Nigeria has been designated as a dirty game as a result of the activities of politicians in their quest for the capture and control of the state.Terrorism, kidnapping and other forms of violent crimes have continued to grace the front pages of the Nigerian newspapers and magazines and also formed news headlines. Politically motivated assassinations have been very rampant over the years, inter-party war or words and fight between party supporters has been very disturbing to the average Nigerian. For example, former Governorship candidates in Lagos, Ekiti, and Plateau states wereassassinated between June and September 2006. Thus, the experiences of Nigeria and Nigerians have been that of crisis of governance.Furthermore, since the inception of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic in May 1999, elected officials, especially those on the platform of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), have contributed to the erosion of federalism by their actions which have facilitated the entrenchment of unitary practices in a supposedly federally polity (Natufe, 2006). The federal government has before now assumed the status of democratic dictator issuing instructions to the state governors and who must obey or face starvation of resources or federal projects, thus operating the country as a unitary state. This experience was more obvious between 1999 and 2007 under President Olusegun Obasanjo given his military command background. He could not separate his ‘party’, the PDP from the ‘state’; rather he operated the two like his personal property issuing commands and directives as if it were in military rule. More so, godfatherism has been a bane of good governance and democracy in Nigeria since 1999. Political godfathers have been more powerful than the electorates put together. They determined policy thrusts of governors and other office holders even at the expense of Nigerians and sometimes against the constitution and other laws of the country. The incidences of Chris Uba and Lamidi Adedibu in Anambra and Oyo states respectively are good examples of this ugly situation. On the same vein, appointment of ministers, commissioners and other appointees have been on patronage system where godfathers project their godsons for such appointments and expect returns from them when they occupy such positions. Often times, these appointees end up being round pegs in square holes achieving little or nothing in their tenure of office. Again, the award of contracts by the President and Governors has also toed the line of patronage system where contracts are awarded to friends or relations and associates of those in power. These contracts often are not properly executed and in some cases not executed at all while payments are made to the contractors. These acts have continued to work against good governance as dividend of democracy.

APC and the Challenge of Governing without Opposition

Dausadau (2005:15) expressed the optimism that democratic rule was expected to bring about ‘good governance as recompense for the bad governance of the other types of government the nation had seen’. One of the attributes of democratic governance system is the active role of the opposition party who will always act as watchdog to ruling party. A major danger in the absence of this opposition is the tendency of the party in power to be arbitrary in its policy decisions and overall governance. With the loss of PDP in the general elections and the level of crises rocking the party before and after the elections, it is skeptical on whether the PDP can actually form a formidable opposition in conjunction with other political parties. This is true because, based on past experiences; a lot of politicians in the present PDP will decamp to the APC where the greener pasture lies currently thereby making the PDP weak. Thus, in the event of a poor opposition party as APC governs, the party faces the challenge of governing as if there is a strong opposition even when none exists. The party must beware of acting as if there will be no more elections in Nigeria in future. They must recognise the power of the electorates who gave them the victory they enjoy today and who can also take such victory away from them if they toe the same road taken by the PDP.

The People as the only Hope of Meeting the Expectations of Good Governance

One of the major pillars of any society apart from the state and market is the civil society. The civil society comprises all pressure groups and associations, non-governmental organisations, trade union groups, political parties and all other stakeholders who have no direct leaning with the state. These groups act as the voice of the masses in any polity speaking for the people in any issues. This is so because their members are those who are not parts of government but speak loud and the government listens whenever they speak.