The Multiple Party System Employed in Nigeria - Essay Example

The Perfect Form of Democracy Democracy, in one form or another, is the most common form of government in the world. Forms of democracy range in the level of representation they provide to the various interests in society and in the amount of power vested in the individual voter. Each democratic institution has to balance the concerns of voters against the logistical problems of large populations and the protection of minorities and resources from the opinions of the majority. There is no extant form of a perfect democracy on a national level, by analyzing the aim and character of democracy, it is possible to observe how close a government comes to upholding the ideals upon which democracy is built, or to measure how far away it is. While the United States considers itself the original and best democratic nation, the institutions and basic structure of the government inhibit some of the foundational ideals of democracy. Younger democracies, like Nigeria and Spain, actually come closer to realizing representation of the citizenry. The small-scale direct democracy of classical Athens is often held up as the purest form of democracy. Each citizen in Athenian democracy had a vote, the simplest formulation of “One man, one vote,” a right which did not extend to women and slaves, and voted directly on issues, policy, and representation (Blackwell 2003). This original democracy is only truly practicable on small scales. With larger populations, such as the 300 million population of the United States (United States Census Bureau 2010), direct democracy is highly impractical, requiring voters to vote on representatives to act in their interests. The way these representatives are elected and represent the will of their constituents is the primary difference between democratic governments. In the United States, power is shared by three separate branches of government, designed to share and check one another to avoid concentration of power in any single branch of the government. The elected representatives of the legislative body are tasked with the crafting of legislation, funding, approving presidential appointments, and declaring war. Representatives of the two houses in the legislature are elected by voters in their district, unlike the president who is elected by electors who are themselves elected in the Presidential race (Leip 2008). On the surface, this may appear to be direct representation, but the United States has a two-party system of democracy, meaning that voters are more often voting for a political party rather than a candidate and his policy platform. Power in a legislative body is shared and wielded by political parties who, more often than not, can act in the best interest of their party rather than the interest of the voters, regardless of the reasons for which they were elected. This system presents problems for a claim of a true democracy in several ways, one of which being the means by which candidates are selected to run for office in the first place. The political party helps raise funds to run the campaign, a control on who can run in the race before it even starts. Independent or third-party candidates rarely win an election because of the lack of political party support. When they do win, it is almost always because they have name recognition as an established political figure, such as Joseph Lieberman, who won his seat in the Senate as an independent after losing the Democratic primary in 2008 (Joseph I. Lieberman 2011). The voter has, basically, a choice between two candidates, two parties, which does not represent a real choice and may not truly represent the views of the voters. Another problematic aspect of a limited-party system is the gerrymandering of political districts. Once in power, political powers redraw districts to consolidate blocks of voters they know will vote for their party. In a way, this is “rigging” the election system such that the incumbent, or at least his or her party, is reliably safe in an election, which explains the extremely low turnover rate in the U.S. Congress (Chapman 2010). Barring major changes in the public mood, such as the 2010 election which saw many Democrats lose their seats to Republican newcomers, the balance of power is very difficult for an independent to shift. As Schwarzmantel points out, the organisation of political parties is one of the cornerstones of an organised electorate (1994). However, when participation is limited to two parties, many voters will, naturally, make concessions to their representatives, rather than the other way around, leading to the American institution of voting for the “lesser of evils.” Most democracies in the world institute a multi-party system, where a single party rarely has a majority and must form compromises and form coalitions with other parties in order to govern. Spain’s electoral system side-steps the problem of entrenched regional representatives by electing representatives solely by party (Alvarez-Rivera 2010). Voters choose from a slate of names and each party is awarded the number of seats in the General Courts closest to the proportion of total votes they received. When presented with more choices, as proportional representation tends to do, voters will rarely overwhelmingly vote for one political party, especially when their motivation is simply unhappiness with the current one. A multi-party system is inherently good for a democracy because it ensures that even a small minority will have at least some representation in the legislature. While the “Will of the Voters” is a somewhat problematic phrase because, as Schwartzmantel says, the citizenry is not a monolithic entity, but consists of groups of people with divergent, sometimes competing, interests, a proportionally representative system provides voters with a higher likelihood of being able to choose representatives based on policy and platforms that may resemble their own opinions and interests. The General Courts of Spain is a proportionally representative legislative body with seats designated to political parties based on their proportions of votes cast. Spain, also, takes the Federal model of the United States, with each voting area in Spain designated as an autonomous entity. The power of local governments, combined with the wide variety of political parties, eliminates the digital choice voters with which voters in America are often presented. The power of voters in Spain, however, is limited to the General Courts. While the legislative branch of the Spanish government achieves a better representation of the voting public, that is the only branch of government open to the public. Spain is a constitutional monarchy, with a hereditary king as Head of State. The Executive branch of the Spanish government is a council appointed by the King, over which the voters have no power (Alvarez-Rivera 2010). The investment of Executive authority by a King undermines the democratic principle that governing authority rests, ultimately, with the citizens, so while the legislative branch is a better model for public representation than the United States’, the Spanish monarchial system is not democratic at all. Ironically, better representative systems are emerging in new democracies set up in the former colonies of the older western nations. Nigeria is an emerging democracy whose constitutional framers attempted to take the best ideas from both American and European-style democracy. The Executive is elected as in the American system, but the bi-cameral legislature, the General Assembly, is elected by proportionate elections (National Assembly 2011). In enacting this Federalist system, the Nigerian government may be a step closer to an ideal democracy, but they face different cultural issues than many other established democracies. While the rule of law is protected by the constitution, there are several categories of law, including Sharia, used mainly in the Northern provinces (Banville 2007). The adoption of Sharia law in these provinces was supported widely by voters, but now a person’s fundamental rights, and the law’s position on those rights, vary according to where a person lives, because of what the people around him believe. The general opinion is that a perfect democracy is the one that invests as much power as possible in the will of the voter, but there are some cases where that is not wise. The history of democracy is pocked with many instances where public opinion went against the grain of good policy and even democratic principles, such as the famous state of blacks in the American South before the Civil Rights movement. While blacks in the South had the right to vote, the establishment, largely supported by public opinion, actively oppressed the black community and discouraged the power of their vote by using violence, instituting a poll tax that economically disadvantaged blacks could not afford, and requiring discriminatory literacy tests (Kousser 1974). Paradoxically, this attack on democratic principles was supported by the democratic principle of the “Will of the People,” the voters in the south who largely supported segregation (“Civil Rights Bill” 1964). Deciding when the voting public is wrong, regardless of the popularity of an opinion, is an idea that doesn’t mesh well with the egalitarian ideals of a democracy, but it is a common occurrence that should be taken into account. The direct democracy of Athens may have been the most pure example of the system, but its purity also created some problems. A perfect democracy must have a means of overriding voter opinion when the opinion is wrong, based in ignorance, or uninformed. A somewhat similar conversation is taking place in the U.S. now over the most sound economic policies to enact to deal with the current recession. Surveys of American voters show that they do not really understand the effects of government monetary policy or the cause of the problem. For example, 60% of voters believe that the U.S. government lost money on the bank bailouts of early 2010, when in fact it turned a profit (Pryzbyla & McCormic 2010). On the matter of President Obama’s Stimulus package, a similar number of voters believe it had a negative effect, while leading economists believe it kept the recession from deepening and expanding (Krugman 2011). On another issue, a majority of voters believe that the health care overhaul the Americans are attempting will deepen their national debt, while the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that it will, in fact, save the government money (Congressional Budget Office 2010). These are not matters of opinion. They are beliefs informed by factual untruths which are shaping public policy, an unfortunate side effect of a system where voters may be vested with too much power in the government, and more invested in the success of a political party than with the nation. The Nigerian system of government, ensuring proportional representation of the concerns of voters with a European-style proportional voting system while granting public authority over the Head of State, is the most representative of these democratic governments. While certain aspects of their representative system fail to protect minorities, such as non-Muslims in areas controlled by Sharia law, and dilute the principle of the “rule of law,” in which citizens throughout the nation are subject to identical laws without regard for socio-economic status, ethnicity, or religion, it comes closer to embodying the democratic principles than either the Spanish or American systems of government (Schwarzmantel 1994). The multiple-party system employed in Nigeria provides voters with true representative choice and prevents a single political party from accumulating too much power. In many modern democracies, such as the United States, individual legislators can accumulate power that is beyond the control or mandate of the voters, but real entrenchment occurs by political parties who, with gerrymandering and wealthy donors, can hold onto a single seat for a century or more. In Nigeria’s multi-party system, the possibilities for legislative turnover are higher. The Executive branch of the Nigerian government is also subject to the will of the people. Its President is also an elected representative of the people, subject to voter approval. While no system of representative government can be as purely democratic as the direct democracy of Athens, Nigeria provides the highest degree of voter participation and responsibility compared to the United States and Spain. References Alvarez-Rivera, M. 2010, “General Aspects of the Electoral System,” electionresources.org [Online], retrieved 28 February, 2011. Available at: http://www.electionresources.org/es/index_en.html#ASPECTS Banville, L. 2007, “Sharia law and Nigeria,” PBS Newshour, [Online], retrieved 26 February, 2011. Available at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/africa/nigeria/sharia.html Biezen, I. 2003, “Financing political parties and election campaigns – guidelines,” University of Birmingham, [Online], retrieved 27 February 2011, Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/Financing_Political _Parties_en.pdf Blackwell, C. 2003, “Athenian Democracy: a brief overview,” Demos: A Stoa Publication, [Online], retrieved 28 February, 2011. Available at: http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=4&greek encoding Chapman, S. 2010, “End the incumbent protection racket,” The Chicago Tribune, [Online], retrieved 27 February, 2011. Available at: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-10-28/news/ct-oped-1028-chapman- 20101028_1_congressional-seats-gerrymandering-representatives “Civil Rights Bill – the battle in the Senate,” 1964, Civil Rights Movement Veterans, [Online], retrieved on 28 February, 2011. Available at: http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis64.htm#1964cra64s Congressional Budget Office, 2010. “CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act,” Director’s Blog, [Online], retrieved 28 February 2011. Available at: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750 “Interest Groups,” 2011. Opensecrets.org, The Center for Responsive Politics, [Online], retrieved 28 February, 2011. Available at: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php “Joseph I. Lieberman.” 2011, The New York Times, [Online], retrieved 28 February, 2011. Available at: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/joseph_i_lieberman/I ndex.html Kousser, J. 1974. “The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910,” Yale. [Online], Available at: http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/disenfranchise1.htm Krugman, P. 2011, “The conscience of a liberal,” The New York Times, [Online], retrieved 28 February, 2011, Available at: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/small-is-beautiful/ Leip, D. 2008, “The Electoral College: pros and cons,” The U.S. Election Atlas, [Online], retrieved 26 February, 2011. Available at: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_proc on.php National Assembly. 2011, The National Assembly of Nigeria, [Online], retrieved 28 February, 2011. Available at: http://www.nass.gov.ng/ Pryzbyla, H. & Mccormic, J. 2010, “Poll: Americans don’t know economy expanded with tax cuts,” Bloomberg News, [Online], retrieved 28 February, 2011. Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-29/poll-shows-americans-don-t- know-economy-expanded-with-tax-cuts.html Schwarzmantel, J. 1994 The state in contemporary society. Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf, pages 29-47. United States Census Bureau. 2010, “Population Estimates,” U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, [Online], retrieved 27 February,2011. Available at http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=4&greek encoding Read More