Meaning and Characteristics of Nigerian Political System

Meaning and Characteristics of Nigerian Political System Since colonial incursion and the attainment of political independence, Nigeria like other erstwhile colonial possessions have inculcated the Westminster-styled political system at independence “influenced tremulously by an elite class that projects the political culture which could make or mar democracy as a result of the political parties” (Aristotle, 2007). This means that the political parties become platforms on which the politicians actualize the authoritative allocation of values, often time the idiosyncrasies of these political elites form values which are inconsistent with the parent political-style copied, thus making the attainment of good governance impossible. Suffice to state that copied western-style political system, have inherent challenges which are managed with a compelling sense of patriotism- a very rare feature in Nigeria and most other Third World countries. In an attempt at distinguishing a state from the political system, Rummel R. J writes: A political system consists of the formal and informal structures which manifest the states sovereignty over a territory and people. It is the civil aspects of statehood. But a state through its life time may have many different political systems as have China, Russia and France. By the above, it could be totalitarian/autocratic,libertarian/democratic, constituting a balance among interests, capabilities, wills and status quo in continuous contestation. It can be more simplistically defined as the members of a social organization who are in power within a geographical setting as determined by time, interest (elites/less often except through revolution) and some other prevalent climate of opinion. It involves the following kinds – autocracy, theocracy, republic, diarchy, democracy amongst others (Free English Language Dictionary) among others. Political systems provide the platform on which political parties are formed-thus a precursor to political parties which later makes a political system desirable to guarantee good governance for the masses or socialize and mobilize the masses to yearning for change. Thus the functional definition of political parties which distinguishes them from other social organization/interest groups structure electoral choice and (a) conduct the business of government under a party label or banner (Jinadu 2011:1). In the Nigerian context therefore, the desirous political system is democracy, which is in the strictest of sense, utopian. Stressing on the functionality of the political system in the allocation of scarce resources, Maurice A. Coker maintains that, the success of this depends on the “quantity and/or quality of the ‘demands’ and “supports” which are generated in the environment and fed into the political system” (Coker, 1999:48). Lending voices too, Gabriel Almond and Coleman (1960) and Almond and Powell (1966) argue that for a political system to persists, there are several functional pre-requisites which must be performed – divided into ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ – inputs – (i) political socialization and recruitment (ii) interest aggregation and (iii) interest articulation (iv) pattern maintenance and adaptation (v) rule making (vi) rule application and (vii) rule adjudication (48). Therefore, the political system works for the environment (human and institutional) and determined by same. Like the United States, Brazil and India, Nigeria as a federation, a colonial heritage necessitated by her multiculturality has 36 states, a Federal Capital Territory (Abuja) and a 774 Local Government Area structure and adopted the United States presidential system since 1979 which replaced the British parliamentary system of government. It has a three tier of government-legislative, executive and judiciary as provided institutionally working in tandem for the growth and development of the country through the instrumentality of checks and balances and separation of powers. There is a bicameral legislature – the Senate and the Federal House of Representatives (lower house/chamber) both commonly referred to as the National Assembly under the leadership of the Senate President and the Speaker respectively. While the National Assembly is the legislative arm under the Senate President/and Speaker, the executive is under the President, the judiciary interprets the laws initiated by the executive and made by the legislative arm. This structure is replicated at the state and local government levels. While the governor/chairman (executive), House of assembly/councillor (speaker/leader) (legislature) centralization and the judiciary. With time, the centre becomes over concentrated with power, while the component units were appendages relying on their share of the “national cake. A development which became prevalent from the era when the economy became solely dependent on oil, albeit, conscious that oil politics is not the burden of this chapter, the position of Rotimi Suberu on federalism and ethnic conflict in Nigeria is apt: “a stronger federalist system that reduces the power of the central government would counteract ‘cake sharing’ fixation, in which states scramble for a bigger piece of federal monies rather than expanding the overall country’s output” (Hanson 2007). This has led to series of litigations by the states for powers and revenue allocation conceded to them, ironically, the same concession they tenaciously deny the local government areas. Ideally, there is the feature of unity in diversity due to the inherent heterogeneity. Ethno-religious tolerance is preached. But unfortunately what is obtainable in the Nigerian context is division. It is thus leery that the old national anthem was changed. An anthem which recognized the heterogeneity of Nigeria and her growth hinged on brotherhood: “…though tongue may differ, in brotherhood we stand…” The frequency and severity of ethno-religious crisis intensified with time since independence (October 1, 1960). This has undermined the basis of federalism. As it is both a principle and method of handling diversity. It presupposes the existence of differences in history, level of economic development, culture, language and socio-political institution (Mangvwat, 2008:116). While these could also explain why federating units defy the frontier of their parochial allegiance and join others at the center with a purpose of unity (thus unity in diversity).