Get help now


Updated January 17, 2019

Download Paper

File format: .pdf, .doc, available for editing


Get help to write your own 100% unique essay

Get custom paper

78 writers are online and ready to chat

This essay has been submitted to us by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our writers.

Background to Study
Party crises is a major element of party politics most especially in Nigeria and it is linked with the nature of individuals which enables them to have and adopt divergence method in order to achieve the same end. In view of this, a political party can be defined as organized set of individuals or group having similar perspective on how a state can be run in the best manner. The heterogeneous nature of their method in addition with all the activities that takes place in the party make the members of the party to have different interests which may lead to party crises leading to division within and outside the party (Momodu and Matudi, 2013). Based on the aforementioned, conflict is ubiquitous and is inevitable within and outside a political party. The tendency of some members of a group to purse their personal or corporate interest instead of the group’s interest makes it possible. However, a party should have as their objective the aggregation of the divergent interest of its members and strive toward achieving the goal through a unified front. This could limit the negative effect of party crisis in the political system
The encounter of Nigeria with party politics can be traced to the colonial era and the recent experience of the country’s with party crisis linked to the party politics is as a result of the country’s colonial experience which was beseted with “schisms, bickering, backbiting, intrigues, violence, packing and sacking” (Olaniyan, 2009:52). The development is a result of the nature of party system in the country which is nothing but a struggle for political power between and among the elitist class in the country. Thus, Landman (2005: 52) contend that the notion of contestation “captures the uncertain peaceful competition necessary for democratic rule, a principle which presumes the legitimacy of some opposition, the right to challenge the incumbents…the existence of free and fair elections and a consolidated party system”.

Nonetheless, there has been a different dimension to party conflict since 1999 when the country reverted to the practice of multiparty system. This has resulted in party cross-carpeting as a result of the inability of the party to effectively manage the conflict and it has been a major source of contentions among scholars and policy makers on the best way to effectively manage the crises. Some believe in the winner takes all approach which has undermine and relegated some reliable candidates in the polity. It has also turned some into perpetual political defectors (Pogoson, 2014). In addition, Dike (2003) is of the view that political parties in Nigeria have become deeply involved in all manners of anti-democratic activities such as electoral manipulations during political parties primaries and general elections, thuggery, hooliganism and vandalism during elections, assassination of political opponents, opaque methods of selecting candidates and flag bearers, and the general lack of internal democracy, all these and among other have degenerate into uncontrollable crises and an unending political grievances.
Put succinctly, the inability to effectively manage the conflict has resulted in the defections of party members, a concept known as cross carpeting. Thus, it is when the defection of members is inline which the ideology of the party that the democratic values can be enhanced and consolidated and when it’s based on the parochial interest of the party, it will be difficult, if not impossible to consolidate democracy. It is based on the aforementioned that the study examine the management of party crises in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic using the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressive Congress (APC) as a case study.

Statement of the Problem
In the democratization process, party crisis is a regular occurrence and its manifestation can be found in various forms and stages. This has led to the arousal of interest of scholars in understanding underlying forces of intra party conflicts most especially in the third world countries of the Global South where the process of developing democratic ideals and values are delayed. Nevertheless, the facet, variety and the effect of party crises in the country continues to be a major source of concern in the development of democracy in Nigeria. As noticed by Olaniyan (2009: 51) “party politics has adorned the toga of notoriety in Nigeria to the extent that its defining characteristics have been intrigues, bickering, backbiting, schisms and violence”. An adequate assessment of the undertakings of the Nigeria political parties from 1923 when the first political party was established till date will expose the intensity of party crises in the state. the experience of the present political dispensation is the most disturbing as party activities are “replete with so much intra-crisis that rather than furthering democratic ethos, have indeed become stumbling blocks to the attainment of stable democratic order” (Eme and Anyadike, 2011:1).

The process of democratization can be disrupted and threatened by political parties that are prone to conflict. It was observed by Kellman (2004:13) that “while it is recognised that they can be crucial in the promotion of democracy, they can equally be a hindrance to its attainment as well’…true democracy has little chance of surviving”. As a result, party crises weakened the ability of the political parties to perform the role of promoting and nurturing democratic governance and the inability of the party to perform this role can lead to the disintegration of democracy (Kellman 2004: 14–15). Ogundiya and Baba (2005) noted that research findings have indicated that party conflicts, lawlessness and the devastating influence of godfatherism have continued to pose serious challenges to the sustenance of the country’s democracy (Ogundiya and Baba, 2005). It is based on this that it becomes fundamental to examine the management of party crises in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic with focus on the PDP and APC. Thus, the study attempts to make an assessment of the causes of party crises, its implication on democratic consolidation and how the intra-party conflicts of the PDP and APC can be properly managed. The study will therefore contribute to the literatures on party politics.

Research Questions
This study attempts to provide answers to the following research questions:
What is the historical antecedence of intra party conflicts in Nigeria?
What are the factors responsible for intraparty conflicts in Nigeria?
What are the implications of intra party conflicts in the PDP and APC on democratic consolidation?
How can the intra party challenges facing the PDP and APC be managed?
Research Objectives
The overall objective of this study is to examine the impacts of intra-party conflicts in the PDP and APC on democratic Consolidation in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. The specific research objectives are:
To trace the historical antecedence of intra party conflicts in Nigeria.

To identify and analyse the factors responsible for intraparty conflicts in Nigeria.

To investigate the implications of intra party conflicts in the PDP and APC on democratic consolidation.

To proffer ways of managing the intra party challenges in the APC and PDP.

Research Methodology
Sources of Data
In the conduct of this research, secondary data from secondary sources was used. Thus, information was derived from printed materials like official/government publications, journals, seminar and conference papers, newspapers, text books, commission reports, etc. Also, non-printed electronic materials from the internet, unpublished materials and other relevant sources helped in the course of this study.

Data Analysis Methods
In the analysis of this work, the descriptive and qualitative data interpretation methods was adopted. The data collected from the secondary sources was subjected to in-depth, critical and logical reasoning so as to allow us to capture the nature and challenges of the APC and PDP in the Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. Therefore, this research was historical, exploratory, descriptive, and qualitative in nature through the use of secondary data sources for analysis.

Significance of the Study
This study provides valuable insights and contributes immensely to the existing literature and therefore, adds value to the quality of the research. The findings of the study will help various stakeholders in managing the intra-party crisis in the country. Hence, this study is intended for Government decision makers, policy analysts and all relevant stakeholders. The study would also make recommendations on more flexibility and proffer solutions, which would make this inquiry essential for policy makers, academicians and students as it will recommend how party crises can prevented and managed. The study also contributes to the existing body of knowledge, for the reason that if completed, would constitute good and researchable literature on the research problem or any other research topic similar or related to it for future or prospective researchers and the general readers.

Scope of the Study
The study examine and analyse the nature and challenges of the conflicts in the All Progressive Congress and Peoples Democratic Party in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. Thus, the scope of the study is from 2013- 2017.

Definition of Basic Terms
According to Biegon, (2009) a”elections regulate democratic competitions for power and in this contextual role are therefore integral parts of representative democracy”. An election is a process in which the citizen elect their political representative.

There is no universally acceptable definition of conflict. According to Putnam and Poole (1987), “most definitions involve the following factors: there are at least two independent groups, the groups perceive some incompatibility between themselves, and the groups interact with each other in some way”. The researcher therefore adopts the definition of Wall and Callister, (1995).they sees conflict as the “process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party”.
As conflict, democracy lacks a universally accepted definition because each scholars defined it according to their understanding. Thus, there is no definition of democracy that is all encompassing. Despite the disagreement and differences in the definition, Osaghae (1992:40 in Lamidi and Bello, 2013) argues the common aim of democracy is “how to govern the society in such a way that power actually belongs to all people”.
Political Party
Appadorai (1968) contends that “A political party is more or less organized group of citizens who act together as a political unit, have distinctive aims and opinions on the leading political questions of controversy in the state, and who by acting together as a political unit, and seeks to obtain control of the government”.
Organisation of the Study
Chapter one will give a general introduction of the study by giving out the statement of the research problem, research questions, research objectives, significance of the study, research methodology, scope of the study, definition of key terms and the organization of study.

The second chapter is entirely devoted to “Literature Review and theoretical framework” where evaluated scholarly literature relevant or germane to the research problem would be systematically put down.
The chapter three will explore into the historical antecedence of party crises in Nigeria.

The chapter four will discuss the impacts of party crises in the APC and PDP on democratic consolidation in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic.
The chapter five will summarize and conclude the study as well as give out relevant recommendations.

Appadorai, A. (1968): The Substance of Politics. Oxford University Press.

Biegon, J. (2009). Electoral violence and fragility in Africa: Drawing lessons from Kenya?s experience in the 2007/2008 post-election violence. http://www.erd.eui/media/beigon retrieved 18th April, 2018
Dike, V. (2003) “Nigeria and the Politics of Unreason: Assassinations, Decampments, and Moneybags”
Eme, O. I. and Anyadike, N. (2011), “Intra and Inter-party Crisis in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: Implications for the Sustainability and Consolidation of Democracy in Post Third Term Nigeria”, Journal of Social Science and Public Policy, Vol. 3, (March)
Ibrahim, J. (2014). Engaging Political Parties for Democratic Development. In Olu Obafemi, Sam Egwu, Okechukwu Ibeanu ; Jibrin Ibrahim (Eds), Political Parties and Democracy in Nigeria (pp 1-10). National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, Nigeria.

Lamidi, K.O. and Bello, M.L. (2013): Party Politics and Future of Nigerian Democracy: An Examination of Fourth Republic. European Scientific Journal, Vol. 8, No. 29, pp. 168-178.

Landman, T. (2005). “Democracy analysis’, in International IDEA, Ten Years of Supporting Democracy Worldwide (Stockolm: International IDEA).

Momodu, A. J. and Matudi, G. I. (2013), “The implications of Intra party Conflicts on Nigeria’s Democratisation”, Global Journal of Human Social Science, Vol. 13, Issue 6, Version 1.0, pp. 1- 13
Olaniyan, A. (2009). “Inter and Intra Party Squabbles in Nigeria” in Ogundiya, I. S. et al (eds), A decade of Re-democratization in Nigeria (1999-2009). Ibadan: Ayayayuyu Publishers.

Pogoson, A.I. (2014). Women, Political Parties and Exclusion in Nigeria: 1999-2012. In Olu Obafemi, Sam Egwu, Okechukwu Ibeanu & Jibrin Ibrahim (Eds), Political Parties and Democracy in Nigeria (pp. 237-264). National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, Nigeria.

Scarrow, S. (2000). „Parties without Members? Party Organization in a Changing Electoral Environment,? in Russell Dalton and Martin Wattenberg, eds., Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: O. U. P, 79–101.

Wall, J.A., Jr. and Callister, R.R. (1995): Conflicts and Its Management. Journal of Management, pp. 515-558.

2.1 Conceptual Clarification
2.1.1 Political Parties
According to Omotola (2009), political party is one of the essential organization of a democratic state. Political parties she argued are “makers” of democracy and some scholars and practitioners have claimed that no democratic society can exist without political party. Apart from governmental and electorate related roles, they also perform function of linking the electorate and the government (Omotola, 2009:612, Moore, 2002). Fundamentally, political party are essential to the modern state and thus, there role and importance of cannot be underestimated. As Heywood, (1997) noted, the political party is the major organising principle of modern politics. According to Adigun Agbaje (1999), it is a group of persons bound in policy and opinion in support of a general political cause which essentially is the pursuit, capture and retention for as long as democratically feasible, of government and its officials. Thus, political parties are prerequisite in the election of representatives to control the machinery of government. Without political party, it will be impossible to govern the political system. They assist in the enthronement of the government which makes it possible to discuss the issue of party politics. They also ensure stability and unity in the political system especially when member are united
According to Omoruyi, “political party is ‘a social group’ characterised by a high degree of rational direction of behaviour towards ends that are objects of common acknowledgment and expectation”. These makes political party different from other groups such as the non-governmental organization, labour unions and this is basically due to their unique role the political system. Thus, political parties are institutional representations of the struggle for power between aggregations of the prevalent political interests in society. They provide an avenue in which the citizen get involved in the politics and also assist in interest articulation.
2.1.2 Conflicts
Conflict is ubiquitous and it begins when interest clash. It is thus, a universal element of human society. Adetoye and Omilusi (2015) sees conflict entails struggle and rivalry for objects to which individuals and groups attach importance. Conflict also refers to a state of disagreement between two or more parties over interests, ideals or ideas. Conflict can be seen as a disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Osagbae and Suberu (2005) contend that the material objects in relation to conflict may include scarce resources like money, employment, and position including political ones, promotion in both the private and public organizations. Within these definitions there are several important understanding that emerge:
Generally, we are aware there is some level of difference in the positions of the two (or more) parties involved in the conflict. But the true disagreement versus the perceived disagreement may be quite different from one another. In fact, conflict tends to be accompanied by significant levels of misunderstanding that exaggerate the perceived disagreement considerably.

Parties Involved
There are often disparities in our sense of who is involved in the conflict. Sometimes, people are surprised to learn they are a party to the conflict, while other times we are shocked to learn we are not included in the disagreement. On many occasions, people who are seen as part of the soci al system (e.g. work team, family, company) are influenced to participate in the dispute, whether they would personally define the situation in that way or not. In the above example, people readily “take sides” based upon current perceptions of the issues, past issues and relationships, roles within the organization, and other factors. The parties involved can become a difficult concept to define.

Perceived threat: People respond to the perceived threat, rather than the true threat facing them. Thus, while perception doesn’t become reality per se, people’s behaviours, feelings and ongoing responses become modified by that evolving sense of the threat they confront.

) Needs, interests or concern: There is a tendency to narrowly define “the problem” as one of substance, task, and near-term viability. Simply put, there are always procedural needs and psychological needs to be addressed within the conflict, in addition to the substantive needs that are generally presented.

From the points presented above, we can establish that conflicts occur when people (or other parties) perceive that, as a consequence of a disagreement, there is a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Conflict may be violent or nonviolent (i.e. in terms of physical force), dominant or recessive, controllable or uncontrollable, and resolvable or insoluble under various sets of circumstances. On the other hand, conflict is distinct from tensions, insofar as tensions usually imply latent hostility, fear, suspicion, the perceived divergence of interests, and perhaps the desi re to dominate or gain revenge. However, tensions do not necessarily extend beyond attitudes and perceptions to encompass actual overt opposition and mutual efforts to prevent one another. It is important for students to note that tension often precede and always accompany the outbreak of conflict, but they are not the same as conflict. The causes of tension, however, are probably related to the causes of conflict. Moreover, if tensions become powerful enough, they themselves may become contributory or preliminary causes of the occurrence of conflict, insofar as they affect the decision-making process.

2.1.3 Intra-Party Conflicts
In order to understand intra-party conflict, it is essential to understand the meaning of conflict. Karl Marx, sees conflict as a situation when there is an existence of divergent interests in a group, or among various groups with each group or class targeted at pursuing her interests, usually resulting to the emergence of conflicts among those groups (Charles et al, 2007). Wolff, (2006:3) is opinion that conflict can be conceptualized as a “situation in which two or more actors pursue incompatible goals, yet from their perspective, entirely just goals”. Similarly, Nkechi (2011) argues that intra-party conflict is a period of great shock, distress or difficulty within a political party, resulting from the inability to resolve internal disputes and reconcile internal differences. Christopher (2013) contends that conflicts which occur within political parties are natural occurrences among humans, which occur in the process of struggling for limited social elements like prestige, positions, wealth and recognitions. In line with this, Momodu (2013), believes that conflicts within political parties arise out of political goal incompatibility among its members and also during the process of decision making whereby every member strives to influence the process at the detriment of others.
2.2 An Overview of Political Parties in Nigeria
The first political party in Nigeria was the Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP) established in 1923, and has Herbert Macaulay as its leader. The party was restricted in its activities to the Lagos council and it was the dominant party for years in the country. The dominance however was challenged by another party created in 1929 known as the Lagos Youth Movement and was latter known as the Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM). The NYM defeated the NNDP in an election in the same year. However, there was an increase in the numbers of political parties’ in 1954 due to the national agitations. The National Council of Nigeria and Cameroon (NCNC) and the Action Group and Northern People Congress (NPC) were established in 1944, 1950 and 1959 respectively (Omotala 2009).
Omotola (2009) further stated that “By 1951, a breakaway faction of the NPC consisting mainly of radical youths based in Kano formed the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU). These parties dominated the political landscape of the country, particularly in their respective regions in the march towards independence and in the First Republic. Although the Second Republic (1979-1983) witnessed the emergence of more political parties, there was no much difference with what obtained under the First Republic. Rather, what happened was the reincarnation of parties of the First Republic, under different nomenclatures, with some additional parties. The parties included the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) and the Nigerian Peoples Party (NPP), replacing the NPC, AG and NCNC, respectively. Others were the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) and Great Nigerian Peoples Party (GNPP), and later Nigerian Advance Party (NAP), which was registered in 1982, after failing the first round in 1978. These parties constituted major actors in the Second Republic.”
She also cited, Onu and Momoh, (2005) and claimed that “Under the aborted Third Republic, there was a fundamental change in the mode of party formation in Nigeria. This pertains to the official formation of parties by the state after a series of experiments with different political associations.” Omotala (2009:621). The name of the parties that were established are the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and National Republican Convention (NRC). The parties came into existence after the thirteen parties that sought for registration were dissolved. In 1999, multiparty system was introduced after the successfully transition completed by General Abdulsalm Abubakar. From the beginning, only three political parties were registered by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). There are the Alliance for Democracy (AD), the All Peoples Party (APP), which later became the All Nigerian People Party (ANPP) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). However, there was an increase in the number from three to thirty (30) in 2002, according to Tukur (2014) and Kumolu (2015), there were only 26 of these parties in existence for the 2015 general elections.
2.3 Intra-Party Conflicts in Nigeria
The evolving character of Nigerian politics from the last quarter of the colonial period to the present is reflected in the changing character of her party politics. Thus, from the enactment of regionalism by Author Richards in 1946 through the short period during the First Republic lasted, two dominant factors shaped the character of intra-party relations/politics: ethno-religious and, to a lesser extent, some feigning of ideological commitment. From the beginning of the 1950s, the two dominant political parties in the Northern and Western regions were unabashedly ethnical in intent and purpose – the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) and the Action Group (AG) were formed to, first and foremost, cater for regional interests and then participate in the national political affairs. One can comfortably posit that the last decade of the colonial era and the first decade of independence reflected a mixed grill of ethnic, clientelist and civic tendencies on the part of leading gladiators in the party system (Lewis: 2007: iii). The construction of identity and political attitudes accordingly toed these lines. Overall, however, it can scarcely be gainsaid that ethno-religious identity enjoyed relative saliency during this period. A few historical evidence may support this proposition. Tyoden (2012:5) avers that “in the cause of advancing its own goals and interests in Nigeria, the colonial authorities had deliberately encouraged the three dominant ethnic groups at the three regions (Hausa-Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba) to develop and assert their separate social, cultural and even political identities and to pursue the issue of political self-determination from their separate, exclusive, regional-sectional perspectives.

Thus, the NPC and AG emerged from preexisting socio-cultural organizations created to promote ethnic-sectional interests and identities. The AG and NPC particularly sought to ensure that political powers in their regional domains were monopolized by members of their ethnic origins. The first ethnic-oriented political crisis in Western Nigeria became the direct outcome of this identity construction. The landmark party carpet crossing in the Western House of Assembly in 1951 sign-posted this. The leader of the National Council for Nigeria and Cameroon (NCNC), Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, was to be the Premier of Western Region following the victory of his party in the Western regional election. On the day of inauguration, the Yoruba members of the NCNC, who had earlier been intensely brain washed, decided to cross-carpet to the side of the Action Group – a purely Yoruba political party. To set off the exodus, one of the NCNC members (who is a Yoruba), got up and remarked, “Your Excellency”, referring to the Governor, who doubled as the House Speaker, “I don’t want to be part of a situation where Yoruba land would be set on fire, so I am crossing over to the other side”. And this heralded their crossover to the Action Group (Mbah, 2011:3). Consequently, the leader of the NCNC, an Ibo lost to the leader of the Action Group (AG), the Premiership position. The ploy underlying the crossover was just to deny Dr. NnamdiAzikiwe, an Ibo, the premiership position of the Western Region, even though being a resident of Lagos territory, he was constitutionally entitled to this. Consequently, Zik (as he was generally called by his political admirers) came under pressure to return to his home, the Eastern Region, to take up the premiership position. Significantly, again Zik could not achieve this without engendering another ethnic disaffection. Chief EyoIta, (an Efik) had been the leader of the NCNC in the Eastern region. But because the Ibos formed a very dominant majority in the Eastern Region, EyoIta was, as it were, shoved aside in order for Zik, the National leader of the NCNC to become the Premier, thus complicating the intra-party crisis in the NCNC.
In the North, the combined effects of the radical orientation of Aminu Kano and the perceived and actual marginalization of the Northern minorities lay at the root of intra-party crises during this period. Aminu Kano had opted out of the Arewa Cultural Group, which had metamorphosed into the Northern People’s Congress, to form the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU). This was primarily to give expression to his “Talakawa” stance – a pseudo socialist ideological identity which targeted repudiation of the feudal identity of mainstream Northern political leadership. The formation of the United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC) by Joseph Tanka, arallying figure of the Northern minorities, following incessant cases of marginalization from the dominant Hausa-Fulani political establishment, was another significant factor.
Issues of principle and civic orientation also played out later in western Nigeria in the First Republic (1960-1966) when the former premier, Chief Ladoke Akintola, left the Action Group with his teeming followers to form a splinter organization known as the Nigerian National Democratic Party which later aligned with the NPC. Similarly, in the East, a leading Ibo politician and a very close ally of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the national leader of the NCNC, Dr. Kingsley Mbadiwe, broke ranks, and with other defectors, formed a new political party known as the Democratic Party of Nigeria Citizens (NDNC) (Mbah 2011:4). True to the prevalent trend, this party formed an alliance with Awolowo’s Action Group during the 1959 General Elections.
Rebellion against First Republic party Lords became more pronounced in the Second Republic, hence it was possible for the National Party of Nigeria (NPC), a supposed reincarnation of the NPC, to enlist strong membership across the nation, in the West Central, South-South and South Eastern States. During this era more functional, and less parochial factors had begun to gain salience in the construction of political identities. The Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) and Great Nigerian Peoples Party in the (North East) became sign-posts of this type of identity. In the West, due to personality clashes, Chief Awolowo’s loyalists, such as Adisa Oladosu Akinlola, Anthony Enahoro, Richard Akinjide, even Chief Akin Omoboriowo, defected from UPN to NPN; in like manner, Alhaji Abubakar Rimi, a sitting governor of Kano State decamped from, the PRP to the Nigerian People Party (NPP) following disagreement with the leaders of PRP, Mallam Aminu Kano and Pa-Michael Imo Udu, the iconic Nigerian labour leader. The 1983 General Elections period in Nigeria marked the beginning of phenomenal and indiscriminate defections of members of mainly the opposition parties – the UPN, NPP, the PRP and GNPP to the ruling NPN. We shall show how institutional factor had made this fashionable among many politicians. Other notable political office holders like Dr. Clement Isong of the old Cross River State, also defected from the NPN to the UPN on account of power play at the national level of his party.
What has now been meekly accepted as the Third Republic in Nigeria’s political history was the period 1991 – 1993 when the Babangida’s regime inaugurated a diarchical governance system, mainly at the state level, supposedly preparatory to completing the civilianization programs slated for the later part of 1993. Two political parties, created by decree, by the Babangida government – the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the National Republic Convention (NRC) became the organizational harbingers of party politics in that era. Intra-party politics accordingly had circumscribed institutional contexts plus a not so disinterested military regime at the national level that regularly called the shots. One needs to add that the military government of Babangida also drew up their constitutions and manifestoes, including laying down “the rules and regulations governing membership and the structure and operation of the parties, as well as providing generous grants for their sustenance” (Tyoden 2013:11).

Two major, somewhat persuasive, reasons were adduced by the Regime for wholly forming political parties on behalf of politicians: one had to with the desire to attenuate ethno-regional cleavages, the second was to nip in the bud the menace of “money bags” thus eliminating the control and dominance of party politics by over-bearing personalities (Tyoden, Ibid). General Babangida himself justified his action thus:
The two party system was recommended by the Political Bureauand accepted by the Armed Forces Ruling Council in the strong conviction that such a system would induce all tendencies in our pluralistic society to seek accommodation under the umbrella of the two parties (Olagunnju et al 1991:40).

Inter-party relations within the SDP and NRC were largely influenced by the mode of their creation and the statutory context within which they operated: there was no privileges relating to having founding fathers and or financial sponsors – almost all members became co-founders and co-joiners. But these were more in appearance than in reality as rich and influential politicians still enjoyed preponderance of privilege when it came to choosing candidates for elections. In addition, the constitutions of the parties made party chairmen the leaders of the parties. In fact, the National Electoral Commission (NEC) had reason to comment on the fact that party chairmen were so powerful that they sometimes operated against the collective will of the entire Executive Committees at a given level or even against the collective will of the generality of party members” (Daily Times; 1993:6).

However, in comparison to the first and second Republics, the theme afforded more internal democratic opportunities; yet these was the appearance of solidarity tendencies: the People’s Solidarity party, the People’s Front and the Consultative Forum which tended to create significant cleavages within the two parties. This portrays the enduring nature of the internecine struggle for political power amongst the country’s politicians. This tendency however stopped short of inducing defections.
The PDP has since 1999, had more than its due share of crises, having had a spectacular rate of turn-over in its National Executive Committees. For instance, during the first term in the presidency of the PDP which lasted only 4 years, the Party had more than 3 National Chairmen – Chief Solomon Lar, the pioneer chairman, Chief Bernabas Gemade Chief Audu Ogbe. It was ditto for other key officers like the national secretary. The states and local governments had their own due share of unusually high turnover. This trend was reproduced in other two major parties – the AD and APP. Through the second tenure 2003-2007, there was even higher rate of turnover, as the souls of all the parties were virtually seated in the pockets of the political chief executives depending on the level of government in the Federal structure at which a party holds political sway for the PDP it was at the Federal, State and local levels. For the AD it was the six states of the South West – Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti and this only for one term of office 1999-2003; because from May 2003 the President who is also of South West extraction, had tricked all the Governors of the AD into a deceptive pact that turned out to be mommental political suicide. And so the AD almost fizzled out of the country’s political, landscape as the PDP swept five states leaving only Lagos, where the Governor, Bola Tinubu had displayed delectable smartness and never yielded his political constituency to President Obasanjo’s political trap.
The crises in the leadership of so many chapters of almost all the parties, had provided ready-made excuse for party members who are enamored of party flirtation in search of greener political pasture. Hence, the political lexicon of Nigeria soon became saturated with “defection”, “decamping”, “cross-carpeting” etc. Such cases have become legion and they apply to all the political patties. What is more, between 2007 and 2011 general elections not less 60 political parties mushroomed and about 25 appeared in the ballot papers of the 2001 General Elections.
Right from the inception of the present Republic, Politicians have shown no qualms about moving in and out of political parties, depending on their perceptions of political advantage; the First Senate President in this dispensation, Senator Evans Enwerem, was originally the governorship candidate of the All People’s Party (PPP). In Imo State (Mbah 2011:6). But he lost his bid to bear the flag of his party for the subsequent general election. He decamped to the PDP before the general election; upon offer of senatorial ticked by the Party leadership. He did not only win election to the senate but was also rail-roaded by Chief Obasanjo’s Presidency and the national leadership of PDP to the Senate Presidency. In Plateau State, Alhaji Alhassan Sbaibu, for a relatively frivolous reason, decamped from the All Peoples’ Party (APP) and joined the PDP in 1999. As a compensation, the President appointed him member, Northern Nigeria Development Company (NNDC). In Cross River State, not less than severe prominent APP and AD members cross-carpeted to the PDP. Another striking decamping during the Obasanjo regime was that of his Vice–President, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. He was a foundation member of the party, having played active role in late Musa Yar’Aduah’s PDM. He defected to the Action Congress which became the new name of Alliance for Democracy (AD) after an open pitched battle with his boss, the President: contested as the presidential candidate of the Action Congress in 2007 general elections, returned to the PDP in 2011 (Mbah 2011) and ludicrously decamped again from the PDP; became a leading force in the formation of the New PDP and subsequently joined the emergent organizational colossus now known as the All Progressives Congress (APC).intra-party crises, real and contrived, resulted in a spate of defections also involving governors of different party affiliations: the Governor of Bauchi state up till 29th May 2015, Alhaji Isa Yuguda was a PDP member, failed to pick the party gubernatorial ticket in 2007, decamped to now All Nigerian People Party (ANPP), won the election under latter’s platform and subsequently decamped back to his original party, the PDP. The former Governor of Imo state as originally a member of PDP, decamped to Progressive Peoples Alliance (PPA), won election under its platform and almost immediately reverted to PDP; Governor Theodore Orji of Abia State followed the same pattern by changing party identity from PPA to PDP. The Governor of Ondo State, Dr. Olusegun Mimiko won his governorship election on the platform of the Labour Party (LP) but later decamped to the PDP. In the North, Aliyu Shinkafi of Zamfara State (ANPP) and Saminu Turaki of Jigawa State (ANPP) defected to the PDP (Mbah, 2011:7).

The Nigeria National Assembly is by no means spared of this gale of defections and cross carpeting, as no fewer than 13 Senators and 35 members of the House of Representatives had switched party between 1999 and 2013, when a ‘psunamic’ rapture balkanized the so called Africa’s largest party, the PDP. At the Mini-Convention that the PDP conducted in 2013, seven state governors – Kano, Kwara, Rivers, Sokoto, Adamawa, Niger and Jigawa– with their teaming supporters walked out of the venue, the Eagle Square in Abuja, moved to the Yar’Adua Centre where they addressed a press conference and announced their intention to form a new party to be called the new PDP. After initial running battle with the parent body, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the n–PDP decide to strike a deal for a merger with the now mega party – the All Progressives Congress (APC). The party eventually won the presidential election in March 2015 and a reasonable majority of state governorship seats. Ever since its inauguration at the centre the pattern of defection has reversed in its favour. Early August, 2015 a former state chairman of the PDP and leading members of the party in Bayelsa state decamped to the APC at the state party rally that was massively attended by both national regional and state officials of APC plus their teeming supporters/ followers. The decamped members reeled out a plethora of reasons for their action.
2.4 Theoretical Framework
The study is anchored on the theory of intra-group cooperation. The basic argument of the theory is that conflict and cooperation is one of the major reasons for the existence of social group and this is due to the fact that social groups are established by groups of individuals having different interest who had an agreement to put down their interest in the general interest of the group. As a result of the interactions among group members, the emergence of power relations is sacrosanct and this may result the group into two blocs of power; the strong privileged group and the weak less privileged group. There is a competition among this groups for the control of political power with the goal of influencing group decision in their favour. This situation can result into communication problem in the group. It is worthy of note that the ambition that unite the members of the group provides an opportunity for these power blocs to reach a consensus in order to unite the diverse interests in the common interest of the group so as to promote the overall goal.

The aforementioned are supported by Alexander, Chizhik, Chizhik, and Goodman (2009), in their article that, “early on in the formation of groups, hierarchies of power and prestige become readily apparent. Such inequalities develop even in groups where members are of equal status at the outset of group interaction?. Hierarchy within groups is not simply a status ordering of individuals; it often involves coalitions of group members (subgroups) and represents power differentials among these subgroups”. It was also reported by Alexander et al. (2009) that “once hierarchies of power and prestige are set into place, research suggests that they are viewed as legitimate and highly resistant to change…valid and helpful suggestions from low-status members are likely to be ignored, devalued, or discounted”.
Despite the fact, some members of less privileged group may contest the inequality in this groups in order for the group to improve. The enmity between these power blocs of the privileged and the less privileged is settled by agreeing on a consensus that will ensure that there is unity of interest.
Adebayo, A. (2008). Writing a Thesis/ Academic Papers. In Olayinka, A.I., Popoola, L., and Ojebode, A (edts). Methodology of Basic and Applied Research. Proceedings of a Workshop, the Postgraduate School, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Pp. 177-191.

Adetoye,D.and Omilusi,M.O. (2015).Ethno-religious conflicts and democracy in Nigeria. Global Journal of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences, 3 (1), 51-58.

Agbaje A. (1999) Political Parties and Pressure Groups, in Anifowose R. And F. Enemvo (eds)
Elements of Politics. Lagos: Malthouse Press
Agbese, A., Jimoh, A., Wakili, I., and Sule, I. K. (2013). As INEC Okays Parties Merger. Sunday Trust 01/08/2013.

Charles, I.T & George, T. 2007. Conflicts and Inter-Group Relations in Nigeria: What Way
Forward. Biudiscourse Journal of Arts and Education.Vol 2(2): 165-180
Dimowa, D. (2014). What to Watch as Nigeria’s 2015 Showdown Brews. Web log post Retrieved from:

Faleti, S.A. 2010. Theories of Social Conflict. In Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies in West Africa. Pp. 35-57.

Heywood, A. (1997) Politics, London: Macmillan Press
Issa, A.O. (2004). Practical Guides to Project Writing for Students in Polytechnics, Colleges and Universities.

Jega, M. (2013). Swallowing an APC Tablet. Monday Column, Daily Trust 18/02/2013.

Kumolu, C. (2015). “Six Weeks to Elections: Where are the parties?”

Lewis, P. 2007. Identity, Institutions and Democracy in Nigeria. Afro -Barometer, working paper No. 68.

Liebowitz, J and J. Ibrahim. 2013. A Capacity Assessment of Nigerian Political Parties, New
York: United Nations Development Programme.

Mac-Leva, F., and Olaniyi, M. (2013). 10 Challenges ahead of APC. Sunday Trust. 4/08/2013.

Mbah, P 2011 Party Defections and Democratic Consolidation in

Moore, M. (2002), “What Do Political Parties Do?” Retrieved 15 April, 2017
Obla, O. O. (2013). Why Merger of Opposition Parties in Nigeria Has Become Imperative. Web log post retrieved from: (on 23/09/2013)
Omotola, J.S (2009) Nigerian Parties and Political Ideology, Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No 3, pp 612-634
Onu, G. and A. Momoh, eds. (2005). Elections and Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria, Lagos:
Nigerian Political Science Association.
Opoola, M. (2013). Nigeria: Welcome, All Progressive Congress. Web log post Retrieved from: 2015-pdp-jittery-over-apc-emergence/
Osaghae, E.E. 1998. Crippled Giant: Nigeria Since Independence, London: Hurst.

Osagbae, E. and Suberu, T. (2005). A history of identities, violence, and stability in Nigeria.

Queen Elizabeth House, CRISEWorking paper, University Of Oxford.

Oyediran, O. and A. Agbaje. (1991). “Two Partyism and Democratic Transition in Nigeria.”
Journal of Modern African Studies 29(2): 123–237.

Oyediran O. (1999) ‘Political Parties’, in Oyediran O. And A. Agbaje (eds) Nigeria: Politics of
Transition and Governance 1986 – 1996. Great Britain: Russell Press Limited, Basford
Simbine, A.T. (2005). “Political Vagrancy and Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria.” In Elections and Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria, edited by Onu, G. and A. Momoh, Lagos:
Nigerian Political Science Association 17-33.

Tukur, S. (2014): “INEC Releases Names of Candidates for 2015 Presidential Election”

Tyoden, s. G. (1994) Party Relationship and Democracy in Nigeria. In Omo Omoruyi, Dirk Ber-Schlosserr, Adesina Sambo and Ada Okwuosa eds, Democratisation in Africa: Nigerian perspectives vol. One. Benin-City, Nigeria: Hima and Hima Limited.

Tyoden, S.G. 2013. Inter and Intra-Party Relations: Towards a more Stable Party System for Nigeria. The Constitution, vol 2
3.1 Introduction
A basic element influencing Nigeria’s democratic development is intra and inter party crises. This is basically as a result of the inability of the Nigeria political parties to perform their legal responsibility. Democratic ideals has been gaining awareness in the last few decades due to its possibility of a “virtuous circle” connecting the citizenry to the government and in the process contributing to democratic stability and legitimacy. Party crises is a reality of Nigeria’s political party basically because political party was initially established for a restricted and self-serving objective. However, it is impossible for a polity to be declared a democracy if the element of party politics is absent. This chapter traces the origin of party crises in Nigeria
3.2 An Overview of Party Crises
Political parties can be seen a formal and structural representations of the struggle for power between the agglomeration of the individuals and interest in the state. According to Tyoden (1994), “the quest and struggle for the capture and control of political power are in fact the raison d’etre for the formation of parties”. This as an outcome makes the political parties to see each other as a competitor and an opponent. This also inform the decision of each of the parties to form alliance or proceed with an independence struggle depending on the successful use of strategies by the political parties. The intensity of the competition for political power in the society also depends on the central role of political power when compared with other source of power and this also determines the relationship between and among the political parties. It was this situation that accounts for the inter party crises in the country where political power is a major determinant of the overall flow of the socio-political and economic processes making the struggle for power in the society more intense and since the re-enthronement of democracy in Nigeria, there has been series of inter party crises due to the desire of the political gladiators to gain and retain political power in the country
This kind of relationship may end up hitting up the polity as the various parties to the conflicts end up feeling discontented. For instance, in the struggle leading the 2003 election in Kwara State involving Dr. Olusola Saraki, the godfather and the then State Governor, Muhammed lawal over the control of the State Government after the 1999 general election. This was the reason why Alanamu (2005) labeled the situation as terrible as the “State of Harmony” was turned into a “State of Violence”. Both Dr Olusola Saraki and Muhammend Lawal were always surruounded by armed supporters. The crisis was later extended to the other parties in the state such as the AD where the governorship aspirant made a report about an attack by the ANPP supporters on his convoys in 2002. Similarly, in 2004 Bye election in Ekiti State, the ruling party rented crowd to bully the supporters of the AD in a bid to secure victory in the election. The sudden suspension of the senatorial election in Kebbi state by INEC through minister of the PDP for fear of defeat, the crises between the supporters of the PDP and ANPP in 2001 in Rivers State, the 2003 class between the AD, PDP and ANPP supporters are few cases of inter party crises in the fourth republic.

In a multi ethnic society like Nigeria, political parties tend to be a reflection of the various diverse elements in the country. As Tyoden (1994) noted that the level and intensity of conflicts in the society largely correspond to the degree of conflicts that characterized the various elements in the society. This could largely explain the reason why the various political parties drew members based on this factor and a major account why the inter-party rivalry in the current political dispensation are ethnically driven and it’s especially noticeable in the demand for North versus East ticket, Igbo Presidency and the like. Indeed, as Zakari (2006) noted, this social division that crept into inter-party affairs impeded democratic progress as it renewed the age-long politics of elitism.
Interestingly, Oyediran (2002) noted that what we all believed to be a democracy having multi-party system of government and party politics revolves largely around the political class, who subordinate and subvert the Nigerian State based on their parochial interest. Based on this, any party in power basically employs the state apparatus to institute its parochial interest and this was what the PDP did for the most part of their sixteen year rule and the interest include emerging victorious in elections, making important political appointments and enjoying political patronage. The implication of this is the production of politicians with a high divisive capacity in the polity. Regrettably, the situation is worsened by the importance placed on political power and public office holders. (Obi and Abutudu, 1999:285). A major obstacle in the present political dispensation is the process of enthroning democratic values through ensuring free and fair election as the incumbent and the opposition parties sought to employ all manners of manipulation in other to influence the outcome of an election. These circumstances gravely escalated the already volatile inter-party squabbles among parties throughout the second term of the Obasanjo government which was believed to have emerged through a designed rather than fair process.
In the fourth republic, a major impact of intraparty relationship is the disagreements and rivalries between the individuals in the parties. Thus, Tyoden (1994) contend that the relationship depends on the history of the party, the interest of the major individuals within it, the relationship between the top dogs of the party and the unity of ideology within the party. In Nigeria, the major financier of the party are in charge of the making and implementation of party decisions. This is as a return to their financial investment. They determine who to control the wheels of governance and a result, members who are interested in contesting for election but lack the resources most especially in terms of finance often looks for sponsors and they do end up in the cap of theses party leader who often offer to assist as long as they will do heir will when they get to power. However, the result of the relationship between the godfathers and the candidates for political offices often ends in bitterness and resentment.

In respect of the intra party feud, each the ruling party is faced with various internal crisis as a result of members who don’t meet their needs or interest satisfy. Firstly, the desire for political power made some of the members of the PDP to be exposed to the control and domination of the godfathers. There is an agreement between the godfathers and their godson and a violation of the agreement will result to intra-party conflict. For instance, in Anambra State, the relationship with the godfather Emeka Offa and the godson, who happen to be the governor, Dr Mbadinuju turned sour in 2003 as result of the disagreement over political positions allocation, sharing of portfolios and other benefits (Arowosegbe, 2005:259). As a result of the conflicts, developemal initiatives were put on hold. The most affected sector is the educational sector as the government could not afford to pay the salaries of the teachers. Also schools were closed down and the state owned tertiary institution was a victim of poor funding. Okeke (2003) noted that “whatever may have been the good intentions of the governor throughout that period was thwarted, unrealized and openly frustrated because of the unlimited struggle by the Kingmaker for material recompense”.
Furthermore, the conflicts between Chief Adedibu and Ladoja is another dimension of intra-party conflicts. The Sunday Tribune of January 15, 2006 reported that before Ladoja’s emerge as the gubernational candidate of the PDP in 2003, the “powers that be” in the party were not comfortable with his candidature but it was Adedibu that convinced them that he should be be allowed to contest on the platform of the party. Adedidu was able to make it known that Ladoja was under his control. However, their relationship got strained after the election. The source of the conflicts was the ceaseless demand made by the godfather, Chief Adedibu. This made Ladoja to make a remark that “I see governance as service while he (Adedibu) sees it as business”. The crisis later spread to the State House of Assembly and it led to the impeachment of Ladoja.

Inter and intra-party crises not only threaten the democratic sustenance, it also questioned the role of multiparty election in democracy sustenance as the crises have exposed the ills of the phenomenon of political godfatherism which presently appears to be taking over the power of the electorates to choose their leaders.

ALANAMU, A. S. (ed) (2005) Issues in Political Violence in Nigeria, Ilorin, Nigeria: Harrison Printing Communications, Ltd.

AROWOSEGBE, J. O. (ed) (2005) Elections and the Politics of MB Demoratic Transition, Lagos, Nigeria: NPSA
Atere A. and Akinwade A. (2006); “Political Parties, Godfatherism and succession Political” in Saliu, H. A. et al (Eds) Democracy and Development in Nigeria Lagos Concept Publications.

Olayinka, A. (2009); Legislative Inputs and Good Governance in Nigeria: 1999-2009 in Ogundiya I.S et al (Eds), A Decade of Re-Democratization in Nigeria (1999-2009), Ibadan Ayayayuyu Publishers.

Omotola, J. S. (2009), ‘Nigerian Parties and Political Ideology’, Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, Vol. 1(3), Pp. 612-34
Omotola, J. S. (2010) ‘Political Parties and the Quest for Political Stability in Nigeria’ Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6(2), Pp. 125-145.

OYEDIRAN, O. and AGBAJE, A. (eds) (1999) Nigeria: Politics of Transition and Governance (1986-1996) CODESRIA
The Punch, April 28, 2012
4.1 Introduction
The encounter of Nigeria with party politics can be traced to the colonial era and the recent experience of the country’s with party crisis linked to the party politics is as a result of the country’s colonial experience which was beseted with “schisms, bickering, backbiting, intrigues, violence, packing and sacking” (Olaniyan, 2009:52). The development is a result of the nature of party system in the country which is nothing but a struggle for political power between and among the elitist class in the country. Thus, Landman (2005: 52) contend that the notion of contestation “captures the uncertain peaceful competition necessary for democratic rule, a principle which presumes the legitimacy of some opposition, the right to challenge the incumbents…the existence of free and fair elections and a consolidated party system”.

Few months after the swearing in of President Buhari in 2015, the APC was faced with intra party conflict. The clearly showed that there was lack of unity in the party and not all the members are in agreement with the manifesto of the party and the programmes of the president and given the fact that a lot of people did not believe that APC will win the 2015 election. The internal deception, differences, disagreement and hatred that characterized the emergence of chief leadership of the Senate and House of Representatives planted the first seed of confrontation and struggle between the party, executive and the legislature. The chapter will examine the impact of intra party crises on democratic consolidation.

4.2 An examination of Incidents of Conflicts under the APC Government
In the APC, the conflict between the executive and the legislature is as a result of the crisis of leadership that was started by some rebellious members of the legislature and also how the party reacted to it. After the emergence of the National Assembly leadership, the executive started prosecuting the senate president, Bukola Saraki and his deputy for allegedly forged the senate standing rules in their favour. Also, the senate president was separately prosecuted at the Code of Conduct Tribunal and alleged him of falsifying the declaration of asset form when he was leaving office as the governor of Kwara State. The properties of the senate president were unraveled by the panama paper during the period of his trial. The trial which was later dropped by the executive branch disrupted the senate seating. Some of the lawmakers moved to the Code of Conduct Tribunal as a show of solidarity with Bukola Saraki.

The senate president gained sympathy as many people believed that he was a victim of political victimization by the APC and therefore must request for assistance and support from the lawmakers of the opposition party. Initially, lack of effective coordination was noticeable between the Presidency and the National Assembly. For instance, most of the policies, programmes and reports from the governmental ministries, departments and agencies which are under the supervision of the presidency are contradictory. Among the issues that lead to disagreement between the presidency and the legislature is inconsistency of the 2016 appropriation bill presented by the presidency and what was defended at the appropriation committee by the heads of the agencies. It was claimed by the members of the legislature that the budget was inflated and the head of the ministries, department and agencies claimed that the budget they presented to the executive is different from the ones they were making reference to.

The divergences generated a lot of allegations and subsequently, counter allegations and also the possibilities that two versions of budget were presented to the lawmakers by the presidency. Similarly, the possibility of the budget being padded by the executive in cooperation with the legislature cannot be ruled out. The chairman of the appropriation committee, Hon. Abdulmumin Jibrin was suspended for 181 days by the house of representative after the investigation. He made the claim that some principal officers of the House including the speaker had inserted constituency projects into the budget. Also, in the executive, the head of budget office was relieved if his job. Another allegation was that of the disappearance of the budget immediately it was presented by the president from the senate. These confusions are as a result of the lack of unity, coordination and cooperation between the executive and the legislature and even the ruling party.

Furthermore, there was conflict between the presidency and the senate as a result of the rejection of summons by some government officials. It started from the former secretary to the government of the federation (SGF), Babachir David Lawal. He was summoned as a result of an allegation of fraud in the award of contract for grass clearing in refugee camps in the north east at the Presidential Initiative of North East (PINE). The sum of N500m was award for grass clearing and it was contracted to the company where there SGF is a major shareholder which was against the law. The action led to his sack. After the suspension of the SGF, a presidential panel headed by the Vice-president investigated corruption charges against him.

Immediately after the swearing-in of president Buhari, he made the change in the leadership of the Economic and Financial Crimes Comission one of his priorities. Chief Ibrahim Lamorde was replaced by Mr Ibrahim Magu who was acting in acting capacity. The president was empowered to nominate the EFCC chairman subject to the approval of senate by the EFCC Act. Immediately Mr Magu go to office, he carried out an anti-corruption crusade that can only be compared to when Nuhu Ribadu was incharge of the EFCC. There wwas massive recovery of hidden stolen funds and money was willingly returned. The success recorded by the EFCC was hailed by Nigerians even when the accused could not be prosecuted and convicted. Despite the delay in forwardimg the name of Magu to the Senate, the Vice President who was then acting as president forwarded his name to the Senate. However, the senate rejected him and didn’t confirm him basically due to a report by the DSS that sees the EFFC chairman lacking integrity. After the EFCC chairman was rejected by the senate, the Senate president was accused of fraud and the senate president denied the accusation. Despite his rejection, he kept acting as the acting chairman of the commission. Similarly, there was also a face-off between the senate and the Comptroller-General of custom Col. Hammed Ali. There were doubts over the appointment of the custom head after his appointment by the presidency. Another case worthy of mention is the suspension of Ali Ndume who wad the chairman of the appropriation committee of the house of representative after the budget padding scandal of 2016. There are similarities between the suspensions of Jibrin by house of representative and that of Ndume of the senate. First both men are members of APC the majority party in both chambers of National Assembly; second, they were allies of both senate president and speaker who defied their party.

4.3 Implication of Party Crises on Democratic Governance
Party crises is clog in wheel of democratic governance in Nigeria. The crisis in the major political parties in the country will is bad for the country and her citizen. Instead of strengthening democratic governance in the country, if will make people to doubt the efficacy of democracy in the country. According to the deputy national publicity secretary of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Timi Frank, “If anybody should tell you there’s no division even at the national level, they’re telling lies. I can tell you there are issues; there are very critical issues,” (Critical Analysis, 2016). The above statement is a confirmation of the crisis within the ruling party. It is based on the aforementioned that this section seeks to examine the impacts of intra-party conflicts on democratic governance in Nigeria. The implications of intra-party conflicts on democratic governance include the following:
Cross Carpeting of Members.

Lack of trust among the members.

Bitterness and division of the party members.

Lack of discipline in the party.

Fractionalization of the party in conflict by opposition party.

Resources and time wasting
Lack of loyalty among members
Dissatisfaction among party members
Collapse of party activities
Party instability
The process of democratization can be disrupted and threatened by political parties that are prone to conflict. It was observed by Kellman (2004:13) that “while it is recognised that they can be crucial in the promotion of democracy, they can equally be a hindrance to its attainment as well’…true democracy has little chance of surviving”. As a result, party crises weakened the ability of the political parties to perform the role of promoting and nurturing democratic governance and the inability of the party to perform this role can lead to the disintegration of democracy (Kellman 2004: 14–15). Ogundiya and Baba (2005) noted that research findings have indicated that party conflicts, lawlessness and the devastating influence of godfatherism have continued to pose serious challenges to the sustenance of the country’s democracy (Ogundiya and Baba, 2005).

It has also been discovered that the political parties are central to both democratization and democratic consolidation (Mohamed Salih, 2003 & Kadima, Matlosa and Shale 2006). They performed a major role in election and the electoral process as they help in the enlightenment, mobilization and organization of their members. Political parties “are teams composed by a variety of players that coordinate themselves to solve collective action dilemmas and coordination problems” (Aldrich, 1995 and Cox and McCubbins, 1993). Thus, Almond (2010) noted that political parties are well structured to perform articulative, aggregative, communicative and educative functions; such a system is often associated with participant political culture which tends to ensure a stable democratic process.

Subsequently, party crises has resulted in the sectionalization of some major parties which has further led to cross carpeting of members to other political party. One of the major reason for party crises is the selfish and greed of the political class for political power. This has a negative effect on the democracy in the country. In short, the inability to manage the crises have resulted in the defection and cross-carpeting in the party.

4.3 Assessment of President Buhari’s Management of the Intra Party Conflicts
While attempting to find solution to the conflict within the APC, the president appointed the National Leader of the APC, Chief Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the leader of the consultation, reconciliation and confidence building committee of the APC. And considering the fact that there is conflict in almost all the states of the federation, the leader faced a huge challenge of carrying out the assigned task. The fact that he has connection both directly and indirectly makes the take tougher. More tougher is the reconciliation of the unsatisfied and aggrieved members of the party who felt disappointed by the president. Kogi, Kaduna, Kano, Gombe, Bauchi, Ondo, Borno, Ogun, Plateau, and Niger are some of the states where there were intra-party conflicts in the APC and some of the conflicts Tinubu is charged to reconcile include the following:
The Incident of Chief Odigie-OyegunIn one of the letter written by Tinubu to the former National chairman of the APC, Chief Odigie-Oyegun, he accused the previous chairman of the APC of interrupting the order given to him by the president to reconcile the issue. The letter brought out the bitterness and anger in the issue that will serve as constraint in peace making. Tinubu accused the former chairman of undermining his efforts especially on the visitation of Oyegun to Kogi State where he inaugurated officers of a parallel APC. Tinubu was not happy with Kogi State beause of the death of the then-candidate Abubakar Audu in 2015. Tinubu’s thought that the deputy of Audu will be sworn in as governor, however it was allegedly twisted by APC in favour of Bello.
In year 2016, Bola Ahmed Tinubu also accused the ex-chairman of “sabotaging the need of democracy” in Ondo State by allegedly overriding the choice of the enchantment panel which requested for a recent governorship major, following investigations that confirmed that the delegates’ record used for the train was tampered with. However, Oyegun didn’t take the accusations seriously as he replied Tinubu, describing Tinubu’s letter to him as regard the Ondo election as “reckless falsehood.”
2. Increase in the Committee of Chief TinubuTinubu was given a free hand to reconcile the factions within the APC by Buhari without adequate detail on how he will carry out the mission and those that will work with him. However, after further consultation, the spokesman of Buhari, Garba Shehu, stated Tinubu will not be working alone. “In fact, Tinubu can’t work alone. When the time comes, he’ll assemble a group that may work with him,” he stated. (Vanguard, 2018). There was the view that given Tinubu alone the mandate instead of collectively will amount to a political suicide. “The task will contain resolving disagreements amongst occasion members, occasion management and political workplace holders in some states of the Federation,” the assertion about Tinubu’s appointment, which was posted on Buhari’s Twitter deal with stated.

However, Ibrahim Jirgi, stated that “the primary time I’m seeing this type of one-man committee. No one doubts Tinubu’s capability, however he’s human, and can’t faux to know everyone and each challenge throughout all of the states. Buhari ought to have chosen at the very least six individuals, one from every of the geo-political zones after which formally inaugurate them with clear mandate and timeframe,” he stated (This Day, 2018). However a supply near Tinubu stated the Asiwaju is now solely testing the waters by transferring with a handful of like-minds, similar to throughout his go to the APC secretariat, his assembly with the Senate president and his journey to Sokoto the place he met with Governor Aminu Tambuwal and ex- Governor Aliyu Wamakko. “The concept is that the Asiwaju would choose some folks from the zones after he goes spherical in order that the principle committee would work for the true reconciliation,” it was stated.

To many Misunderstanding and Factions
In order for the APC to progress, there are some conflicts that need to be resolved. The struggle in Kano State is between Governor Abdullahi Ganduje and Sen Kwankwaso Rabiu who was his predecessor. Governor Ganduje wanted to replace Kwankwaso as senator in 2019. Also, in Kogi State, the conflict is between the Governor and some aggrieved executive members of the state chapter of the party. Governor Bello was alledged of sidling them and creating a faction which was approved by Oyegun. Similarly, the speaker of the House of Representatives and the Bauchi State Governor including the senateors from the state accused the Governor of going against the promises made during his campaign. The conflict couldn’t been resolved by the Ngige led committee
Furthermore, in Oyo State, the feud is between Governor Ajimobi and Adebayo Shittu, a Minister of the Federal Republic. Shittu have the desire of replacing Governor Ajimobi however it was evident that Ajimobi has another person in mind. In Katsina State, there were threat by the APC-Akida, a splinter group within the APC which the Governor is finding it difficult to deal with. It was between Shehu Sani and Governor El-Rufai in Kaduna State In Zamfara State, Senator Kabiru Marafa is at logger-heads with Governor Abdul’aziz Yari; and in Imo State, Governor Rochas Okorocha has perfected all plans to make his son-in-law his successor.

Aldrich, J. H. (1995). Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America’, ed. B. I. Page. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Almond, G. A. (2000) Comparative Politics Today: A World View. India: Pearson Education Limited.

Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. (1993). Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Baiyewu, Leke (2017) FG should drop Saraki’s CCT case, APC senators tell party, Punch Newspaper, April 5,
Emmanuel, Ogala (2015) #Nigeria Decides: Meet Nigeria’s new 107 Senators-elect, Premium Times, April 5
Kadima, D., Matlosa, K. and Shale, V. (2006). “Enhancing the Effectiveness of Political Parties in the SADC Region through Public Outreach Programmes: Focus on Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Zambia’, EISA Research Report no. 29.

Kellman, A. (2004). “Democracy Assistance in Practice: The Designing of a Political Party Training
Program in the Republic of Kenya”, M. A. Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,
South Africa.

Ogundiya, I. S. and Baba, T. K. (2005). “Electoral Violence and the Prospects of Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria” in Onu. G. and Momoh, A. (eds) Elections and Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria Lagos: Educational Publishers.

Olaniyan, A. (2009). “Inter and Intra Party Squabbles in Nigeria” in Ogundiya, I. S. et al (eds), A decade of Re-democratization in Nigeria (1999-2009). Ibadan: Ayayayuyu Publishers.

Mohamed Salih, M. (2003). African Political Parties: Evolution, Institutionalisation and Governance, London: Pluto Press


Remember. This is just a sample

You can get your custom paper from our expert writers

Get custom paper