RESPONSIBLE OPPOSITION AND SURVIVAL OF NIGERIA'S DEMOCRACY

-By Henry Omunu.

It’s the accepted democratic practice globally for opposition parties to question the actions and in-actions of the government in power in relation to the survival of the state and the socio economic well-being of the citizens. In other words, the opposition is expected to hold the ruling government accountable to the public.

In other climes, an opposition party represents an alternate government and is responsible for challenging the policies of the government and proposing appropriate alternate policies. The principle of legitimate political opposition in a democracy is one of the most fundamental components of any liberal democracy. As Ian Shapiro contends, “democracy is an ideology of opposition as much as it is one of government.” The fundamental role of political opposition, both as a normative value and an empirical manifestation, for a proper working of liberal democracy, has, finally, also come to be acknowledged by the overwhelming majority of political elites and citizens of all mature democracies. Simply put therefore, one of the most important jobs of the opposition is to constantly question the government.While it’s imperative for the government in power to remain answerable to the public at all times, the responsibility equally, rests with the opposition party to put the spotlight on serious issues of national interests and have such issues resolved quickly. The opposition party shouldn't engage in the past time of criticizing the ruling party or government for its own sake, but do so with the sense of over-riding national interest, patriotism and nationalism.

There ought to be occasions when the opposition should agree with the government on certain national issues and policies. For example, if the solution proposed by the ruling government has wide support, and is soundly based, then it’s only natural for the opposition to throw its weight behind such a policy. This is the norm everywhere except in Nigeria.

However, in Nigeria, the reverse seems to be the norm. Here opposition parties and politicians take it as their stock in trade to criticize every move, policy and action of the ruling government, thereby throwing objectivity, fairness and national interest to the dogs. The mantra of the opposition is to run down the image of the leader of the ruling party and ultimately, throw the ruling party out of power, and out of government. The ambition to control political power at all cost becomes so strong, that national considerations and survival of the state becomes secondary.

Nigerian opposition parties and politicians must learn to put the nation first in whatever they do. The idea of winning elections at all cost should be relegated to the background. According to a leading opposition politician in New Zealand, the opposition’s formal role is to “hold the government to account. The other major role is proposing alternatives to what the government is doing so the public gets the benefit of political debate between different directions. The opposition’s role is only partly to oppose, oppose, oppose,” adding that “if you go about that in a positive way - you can cause government to adopt positive proposals.”

Alban Bagbin, leader of the opposition in the Ghanaian parliament, speaking on the role and responsibilities of the opposition, contends that the role of the opposition in a democracy is a far cry from the definition given by Tierney, a commentator, about a century ago, who stated that “the duty of an opposition is to propose nothing, oppose everything, and to turn out the government.” The Ghanaian politician classified the traditional role of an opposition party under three broad headings; the voice of the voiceless, an alternative to the ruling government and official opposition. A fourth role which he says has evolved out of the recent global political and economic realities, and which l believe is most relevant to the Nigerian political class is for the opposition to be a critical partner in nation building.




However, Bagbin admonishes the political class that while it’s the duty of the opposition to oppose the government in power, this role which is the most popular, is often misconstrued; questioning that the opposition has the duty to oppose the government in power, but to what end? He agrees that it’s proper for the opposition to highlight and expose those aspects of the ruling government’s policies and nature, which it believes are not in the national interest. The opposition, he goes further to add, must expose the other side of the coin that is not shiny and which the ruling government will otherwise prefer to hide from the public view; by focusing on the negative.

e theory, which of course, subjects the role of the opposition to new tenets. “Governments are enjoined to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights and freedoms. On the other hand, oppositions are expected to make room, space or allowance for cooperation and consensus building. Under this new dispensation, the opposition must exercise circumspection in opposing government. This is particularly relevant to circumstances where there are eminent threats to the peace, security, democracy and psyche of the nation. Th
“This role is vital for protecting the society from the excesses and corruption of power that innately exist wherever executive power resides. In carrying out this duty, the opposition endeavours to challenge every abuse of executive power; bureaucracy and red-tapism; issues of breaches of human rights; waste of public funds; and exposes all these for public or parliamentary criticism and control. This is essentially a watchdog role and is vital to check executive excesses and stimulate democratic debate,” he concedes.

Furthermore, he postulates that in recent times, a new role is emerging from the global dictates of good governance and the dividends of democratic pea
ce national interest, usually very difficult to decipher, should be supreme at all times,” he adds.

Similarly, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, at a workshop organised in co-operation with the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago and the Citizens’ Agenda Network in 2005, observed that in many countries, government and opposition parties completely fail to reach an understanding on what the commonwealth secretary-general called the “collaborative context” for their work. It went on to say that there are no agreement on roles, rights and responsibilities, on limits and consensus, on what the idea of a “constructive and responsible” opposition means in practice, and on when and how government and opposition parties should work together to promote national consensus. “In many cases, there is no real dialogue at all. In short, very often there is no sense in which governing and opposition parties see themselves as partners in the development of the democratic process,” participants at the workshop noted.


ntain and sustain a political culture that promotes constructive engagement, within acceptable boundaries of decency, responsibility, credibility and maturity.

Opposition parties must realize that if they persist in simply obstructing the processes of government, and casting aspersion on the legitimacy, and credibility of the government in power, including acting as agents of destabilizing the government and country, they equally, risk being marginalized, not just by the majority party, but by the electorate in the longer term. As earlier said, the overall interests of the country should be above narrow party concerns.

Some political analysts will advise that instead, of t
The reality is that the inter-play between governing and opposition parties is an essential part of politics. A former CPA secretary-general said at the opening of another workshop in 1998, when Nigeria was still under military rule that the “governing and opposition parties should see themselves as partners in the development of the democratic process”. This is a clear message for the opposition in our country, as represented by the All Progressives Congress (APC). Their virulent and vitriolic attack on the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan and the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is unhealthy for our young democracy and the unity of the country in general.

Nobody can deny the APC the right to criticize the Federal Government and the PDP because of their quest to gain political power in the 2015 general elections, But, for Nigeria’s democracy to survive and thrive, and for the national interest to always precede whatever personal and group interests our political class may have, they must endeavour to promote, practice, ma

iaking on the role of a spoiler; exploiting all opportunities to damage the governing party and, in the process, very often failing to distinguish between the harm done to its political opponents and the harm done to the country, the opposition can adopt a more participatory and collaborative approach. In a democratic order, the ruling party derives its mandate to govern from its success at the elections. For a stipulated period, it has the exclusive responsibility to administer the country within limits defined and enshrined within the constitution, or by convention. According to these analysts, governments come and go, but opposition parties must exercise extreme restraint and caution on how they go about the duty and responsibility of opposition to promote stability in the polity.

Therefore, since Nigeria practices party democracy, it means wherever there is a government of a political party there is expected to be an opposition party or parties. However, it would appear that talking about the opposition in Nigeria; reference is only made to the Federal Government. Opponents of the government in power at the centre, forget that we have state governors in the 36 states who were elected on party basis. The question to be asked in this case, is whether there is a recognised opposition in any of these states?

The APC was formed with a view to becoming an alternative government and with the sole objective of winning the 2015 elections at the federal level. The APC in its present state is composed of politicians who can best be described as strange bed-fellows, who do not agree in principle on anything except taking over government at the centre.

One can agree that there appears to be areas of public policy that are challenging to the PDP government led by President Goodluck Jonathan. These include security, education, corruption, transport and internal infrastructure amongst a few others.

But no well- meaning Nigerian will say that attempts are not being made to address the identified shortcomings in these sectors of the national economy. We all know and believe that change is a constant and change will come when it is well- articulated. So the question is what is the policy of the APC on these areas that are challenging to the PDP led Federal Government? Exactly, what specifically, will change if in the 2015 general elections the APC attains power at the federal level?

My take is that even though Nigeria operates a multi-party system in principle, but in reality, we have a one party system because there is no difference between the parties as exemplified by the constant fluid movement of politicians from the APC to the PDP and vice-versa.

Foremost scientist, late Albert Einstein once said that “the world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” Nigerians are yet to be well educated or see the alternative policies of the APC. The APC, as presently constituted is made up of politicians who are strange bed-fellows and who change parties like chameleons. They change colours to suit their circumstances and their needs. They believe in nothing, except themselves and how they can profit from every situation that can catapult them to power at the national level. They are yet to effectively alter our thinking in such a manner as to result in the kind of change that will ultimately, bring the party to power at the national level.

This is not the type of virile opposition Nigeria needs, especially at this trying period of her nationhood. What the country needs is an opposition in the classical sense of the word – opposing programmes and policies of the government in power considered inimical to the well-being of the citizenry as well as the state; proposing more realistic and workable alternatives, and above all; partnering with the government in power when and where necessary in order to deliver the good life to the people whom they aspire to govern if given the mandate through a proper democratic process. We do not need opposition for the sake of opposition. This is the challenge facing the APC and all other opposition parties whose eyes are aimed at the highest political trophy in the land – the Presidency.




munu is an Abuja-based journalist and can be reached at henryomunu@gmail.com.

O