KWENU: Our Culture, Our Future

Why the Peoples Democratic Party is still Nigeria’s ruling party

Kasirim Nwuke

o.kasirim.nwuke@gmail.com 

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Nigeria’s 2011 elections are over and the results are clear; the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) retained its position as Nigeria’s leading and ruling party. It has the presidency, a comfortable majority in the National Assembly and control of the largest number of states of the Federation.  Coming second in most of the States that it did not win, the party retained its national character. The victors are celebrating while the losers are complaining. That is the nature of contests.

Unlike previous elections, these instant elections were adjudged by all observers - national, sub-regional, regional and international – as free and fair, albeit with some shortcomings.  The observers concluded that, based on the evidence before them, the outcomes of the elections were credible.  Most Nigerians agree. The usually critical “Economist” magazine gushed over the elections and concluded that “The best way for Nigeria to show (regional) leadership is to help its neighbours to stop rigging their polls.”

Naturally, there are some who are not satisfied with the outcome.  Opposition political parties are alleging (at times asserting) that the PDP “electronically” or “spreadsheetically” rigged the elections. Along with those compatriots who would want to see Nigeria transformed overnight, they have chosen to focus on the identified shortcomings of the process and INEC, ignoring the known fact that political institutions and political habits change very slowly in the course of time as people are slow to respond to new incentives and penalties.

There are still others who do not believe and who cannot be persuaded to the view that the PDP won in a free and fair election.  To this group, the only parameter by which the elections could be adjudged free and fair and its outcomes certified credible is a victory by the opposition. The only evidence that they are willing to accept is one that is confirmatory of their beliefs; they reject more substantive evidence that is not.  We must therefore be reconciled to the fact that no matter how overwhelming the evidence that the 2011 elections were free and fair and that the PDP won, there still will be a significant number of Nigerians who are willing to bet their lives that they were not. In a democracy – and even in a dictatorship – people have a right to their views as well as the right to express them. The rest of us have a right to ignore them.

In an essay entitled “In defense of the Peoples Democratic Party”, I argued that the PDP deserved more praise for its able stewardship of our country since 1999 than it has received. I argued that if Nigerian voters appealed to the historical record, they would find a lot in the PDP that could make the party worthy of their votes. It seems I have been borne out by the outcome of the elections.

Why did the PDP win? What factors explain its victory?  These are questions that analysts, researchers, political theorists and political strategists will be seized by in the years ahead.  I attempt in this brief contribution to suggest some answers.

First, the opposition (and many political commentators) forgot that all (or most) politics is local and that the average voter is more concerned about the provision of local public goods like rural connector roads, than she is with national public goods like electricity.  The opposition focused on the failures of the PDP-led Federal government and did not explain to voters how that affected them directly. The opposition believed, rather naively, that the average voter would make the connection between the “failed PDP Federal government” and their member-of-the-PDP representative or governor. The national was equated to the local. But that is not always so.  In Nigeria, because of the non-ideological nature of political parties, voters vote for a candidate and not necessarily for the party.  The party derives significance and credibility through the candidate rather the candidate deriving legitimacy and credibility through the party as is the norm in more advanced democracies. The vote is largely independent of party.

They were mistaken.  Politics is local. Voters knew their their governors, their legislators and parliamentarians and were going to judge these office holders on their “performance” based on what they, the voters, believed they knew to be true.  Performance was broadly defined as “whether or not the office holder was able to carry the people along.” “Carrying along” could mean the N20,000.0 for a sick relative; the letter of recommendation for a young graduate; the free alcohol and free food on a weekend.

Further, voters were actually seeing increased provision of local public goods that were causing demonstrable improvements in their lives: New roads. Rising wages in the public sector. New school buildings and health centres. Free education.  Free health.  All provided (or announced) by the State government which in most cases was a PDP government.  So while the elite agonized and lamented the lack of “great things by the PDP-led Federal Government, at the individual level voters did not find much to complain at the local level.  Their governor was good; their legislators were good.  The energy problem is a Federal government problem, not their legislator’s or Governor’s.  They voted back their governors and reps because they chose not to directly link their and governor to the inability of the federal government to provide essential social services and national public goods.

Second, most of the opposition to the PDP was concentrated in one zone of the country, the south-west,  which is also home to Nigeria’s vocal, and at times richly fecund and imaginative press. Whether the opposition believed that the average voter will be significantly influenced by the press is a matter for analysis and debate.  There are, nonetheless, hints that most Nigerians, now aware of the “brown envelope” journalism practiced by a small proportion of Nigerian journalists, are less trusting of all that they hear on radio and television and read on the pages of newspapers.  The Nigerian voter of 2011 is significantly more educated, more aware, richer, more desirous of having her voice heard than the Nigerian voter of 1999 and 2003.

The south-west also has a son, former President Obasanjo, a member of the PDP, with whom it is not well pleased.  To a majority of south-west voters, it is “haram” to support Obasanjo and by extension the political party to which he belongs.  Obasanjo as currency has very little electoral value in the zone where he’s accused of disenfranchising voters in 2003 and 2007 and of disloyalty to Awolowo and to the June 12 course.  When the courts began to reverse the INEC declared victories of the PDP in the 2007 elections in favour of the opposition, Action Congress of Nigeria (CAN), the uncomplimentary narrative of Obasanjo’s role was affirmed and the  the negative view of the PDP and of Obasanjo in the region gained currency.  The PDP, consumed by the Yar’Adua succession, regrettably, did not mount a challenge.  Further, the PDP in the zone was consumed internecine strife. It is impossible to identify one state in the south-west where the PDP was not in crisis in the run up to the election. It is unlikely that the PDP will make much headway in the south-west until and unless Mr. Obasanjo retires from active politics.  And he should be vigorously encouraged to do so.  Of relevance to our analysis is that the opposition mis-interpreted what was entirely a localized regional trend for a national trend.

Third, most voters care about their pockets.  Nigerians remember an expression that was in vogue during the Buhari – Idiagbon days “Till my economy improves.”  This was the figure of speech for saying refusing a request for a loan (or gift of money) from a relative or friend.  Well, these days, our economy has improved both literarily and figuratively. Our nation’s GDP – the generally accepted measure of a nation’s economic performance during an accounting period - at purchasing power parity has more than doubled since 2005.  According to some analysts, Nigeria’s GDP could actually be larger if the informal sector were included.  Nigeria is now firmly a middle-income country.  Since 1999, the income of the average Nigerian worker has risen in both nominal and real terms. The middle class is expanding at a fast rate. Evidence of rising disposable incomes abounds: the rising proportion of the population shopping in supermarkets and malls; decreasing average age of cars on the roads; a booming in real estate sector; rising proportion of the population traveling by air travel.  Controlling for population growth, there has also been an improvement in the delivery of essential social services to the Nigerian by both the public and private sectors.  Most voters know that this improvement is in large measure due to the policies of the PDP-led government at the centre and at the State level.  They not surprisingly chose to reward the party that has made their lives demonstrably better than it was twelve years ago.

Fourth, the PDP fielded a very credible candidate for President. President Goodluck Jonathan represented to many the “change” [Nigerians] were looking for”.  He has a biography that was not dissimilar from that of most Nigerian voters. In his short time at the helm sent out strong signals of great things to come: the reform of the electricity supply sector, the rehabilitation of the railways (in the south-west where his victory surprised most pundits),  creating nine new Federal Universities to give bright kids like him who otherwise would not have a university education, a chance at that.  He also benefited from the goodwill and sympathy of the Nigerian people who were displeased at the way some small section of his party had treated him.

As well, the President ran a very smart campaign – one that future presidential candidates may profit from studying.  Following Obama, he employed social media to good effect, presenting himself as modern – in contrast to Obasanjo who in 1999 did not know what the internet was – and young. He let the country know that all his children were studying in the country. He campaigned in every state of the Federation – even in his very, very sure states like Bayelsa, Akwa Ibom, Rivers, and Imo. He did not take any votes for granted.  He used his incumbency exceptionally well – choosing very careful when and when not to be in the news and what the issue should be.  Focused on the issues, his campaign was deferential to all the other candidates.  And in refusing to bow to the threats, intimidation and blackmail of some putative influential members of his own party he reminded Nigerians of his characterization of himself in a CNN interview in those unsure days of Yar’Adua’s illness as his being “own man.”  In the face of an opposition that was deliberately disrespectful of him as President and that chose to incite violence, he exercised uncommon restraint.  He made it clear that his was not “do-or-die” but “live-and-let-live politics. He did not panic when the other three major candidates attempted to gang up against him.  He was very cool and measured throughout.  (And his wife was a very effective campaigner too.)

Fifth, reforms within the party itself enabled it to field reasonably strong candidates.  It denied its ticket to many serving members of parliament at the state and federal level.  This enabled the party to present some new faces to the Nigerian people. It handled the vexing issue of zoning with care and maturity. Being a national party, it was able to diversify its electoral risks: losses in one state could be offset by gains in another.  It handled the vexing issue of zoning with care and maturity and was enabled to run a very effective campaign by its significant haul of resources. Further, its control of the Federal government gave it free press – for good and for bad – and penetration.  Its symbol, the umbrella, was easy-to-associate with especially among the poor who often have no car to hop into when it rains.  Its message of inclusiveness resonated with the Nigerian voter more than did the opposition’s.  ACN’s symbol -the “broom” - conveyed belligerence, rudeness, and unfriendliness and the CPC’s “pen” was very elitist and of little relevance to average voter.

Finally, the opposition ran a miserably poor campaign.  Their leaders subordinated the national interest to their huge egos. Their candidates and “chieftains” lacked credibility as most of them were aggrieved former members of the PDP who had left not on ideological or policy differences, but because they failed in their efforts to be the party’s candidate.  The Nigerian voter could not and did not trust them, believing – perhaps correctly based on their antecedents – that they will return to the PDP – either in defeat or in victory – after the elections.  Knowing this, voters voted for the real thing, thr PDP.  The opposition, the results suggest, did better in those constituencies where their candidate was not a  PDP decampee. Not differing from the PDP in terms of programme and ideology, the opposition could not convince the Nigerian people that if elected into office, they will be better, more effective and competent than the PDP has been.

Undoubtedly, the PDP prefers a better result than it got. The Nigerian voter punished the party in some states, especially in the south-west. It will not be correct to interpret the PDP’s losses in the south-west as utter rejection or repudiation.  After all, it came second in all the races in that zone, evidence that support for the party in that zone is not insignificant.  Rather, the losses are message to the party to shape up and deliver on its promises to the Nigerian people or risk having the south-west experience replicated replicated across the country in 2015. The message was clear in another sense: encourage former President Obasanjo to retire from active politics or you will not have our votes even if you shaped up.”

In conclusion, the Nigerian people rewarded the party for it has done in its twelve years in power. The joy in the fact that we had a credible election is saving and restorative of faith in our country’s future.  The elections provided evidence that leadership matters: something we have always known. Good leaders make a difference (as do bad leaders). The President who made it possible for a man of integrity to do his job to the best of his ability without let or hindrance deserves much of the credit.  As does Prof. Jega. In today’s Nigeria, nothing could have stopped Mr. Jega, were he so inclined, to supervise election whose outcomes would have been inconsistent with the wishes of the Nigerian people. The opposition, rather exhaust itself in court cases to reverse should instead begin now to plan for 2015.  As should the PDP too.  As the saying goes, “Tempus fugit.”