Jjsms vol.1. no. 4.

Diplomacy and Global Security: A Historical Narrative of the Post-Cold War Era
1
Henry B. Ogunjewo, Ph.D
Department of History & Strategic Studies, University of Lagos, Nigeria
Email: hogunjewo@unilag.edu.ngdrogunjewohenry@gmail.com
Abstract
Immediately after the Cold war, there was a general optimism of an international system that would
enable the component nation-states to pursue economic growth and greater independence. Despite
the various strategies by the component nation states in the international system to attain self-
sufficiency in economic terms and thus reduce dependence on other nation states for their needs
and survival thereby weakening bilateral relations, the contemporary realities of the international
system in the face of global security challenges pose a compelling sustained cooperation and
collaboration among the nation states in the international system. Global security includes military
and diplomatic measures that nations and international organizations such as the United Nations
(UN) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) take to ensure mutual safety and security.
It also includes the regional and sub-regional collaborative strategies at combating security
challenges. Diplomacy and global security are among the most pressing issues facing the world
today. Success or failure can have huge implications for the international community and society
as a whole. This paper submits that global security will remain a compelling factor in diplomatic
relations in the twenty-first century.
Keywords: Global Security, Diplomacy, Cold War, Collaborative Strategies, Sustained
Cooperation
Introduction
Global security in the contemporary international system includes military and diplomatic
measures that nation-states and international organizations such as the United Nations and NATO
as well as regional organizations like the European Union (EU), the African Union (AU), the
Organization of American State (OAS) and so on take to ensure mutual safety and security. It also
includes the collaborative efforts and regional organizations corporate efforts which provide
analyses that help policymakers understand political, military and economic trends around the
world; the sources of potential regional conflict; and emerging threats to the global security
environment (Buzan and Hansen, 2009). Global security, refers to the amalgamation of measures
taken by nation states and international organizations, such as the United Nations, European

Jalingo Journal of Social and Management Sciences Volume 1, Number 4 August, 2019
2
Union, and others, to ensure mutual survival and safety. These measures include military action
and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions. International and National security are
invariably linked and mutually dependent.
As a matter of fact, International security is national security or state security in the global
arena. Diplomacy and international security are among the most pressing issues facing the world
today. The success or failure of global security can have huge implications for the international
community and society as a whole. That is why this paper presents an opportunity for diplomats,
politicians, academics, state and non-state actors to think strategically reflect historically and plan
properly.
The content of international security has expanded over the years. Today it covers a variety
of interconnected issues in the world that affect survival. It ranges from the traditional or
conventional modes of military power, the causes and consequences of war between and among
states, economic strength, to ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts, trade and economic
conflicts, energy supplies, science and technology, food, as well as threats to human security and
the stability of states from environmental degradation, infectious diseases, climate change and the
activities of non-state actors (Buzen et al, 1998). The international system as presently constituted
is very fragile and demands sustained cooperation and collaboration. This paper submits that
global security will remain a compelling factor in diplomatic relations in the twenty-first century.
Diplomacy
Diplomacy as a concept and practice is as old as man. However, the origin of organized
diplomacy may be traced to the relations among the city-states of ancient Greece. By the fifth
century BC, Nicolson stated, "special missions between the Greek city-states had become so
frequent that something approaching our own system of regular diplomatic intercourse had been
achieved." (Nicolson, 1946) Thucydides reported about diplomatic procedure among the Greeks,
as, for instance, in his account of a conference at Sparta in 432 BC in which the Spartans and their
allies considered what action to take against Athens (Nicolson, 1946).
The Romans contributed in a way to the advancement of the art of diplomacy by
negotiation. Their representatives became skilled diplomats and trained observers. This extended
the practice of diplomacy to include observation and reporting along with representation (Kishan,
2011).
Modem diplomacy as an organized profession arose in Italy in the late Middle Ages. The
rivalries of the Italian city-states and the methods, which their rulers used to promote their interests,
are described in masterful fashion in Machiavelli's “The Prince”. Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan,
established the first known permanent mission in Genoa in 1455 (Kishan, 2011).
In the next century, Italian city-states established permanent embassies in London, Paris
and in the Court of the Holy Roman Emperor. A British Ambassador was assigned to reside in
Paris and Francis I of France "devised something like permanent diplomatic machinery" (Akadiri,
2003).
After the peace of Westphalia of 1648 formalized the state system (Akadiri, 2003),
permanent missions became the rule rather than the exception. Diplomacy became an established

3
profession and a generally accepted method of global intercourse. As diplomacy became more
formal, its rules became more standardized. The 1815 Vienna Congress contributed in this respect,
placing diplomacy on a formal basis, with standardized rules of procedure and protocols,
embodied. In the Regalement of March 19, 1815 and in regulations of the Congress of Aix-la-
Chapelle in 1818 (Akadiri, 2003).
Harold Nicolson, whose delightful little book, Diplomacy, has become a classic on the
subject has called attention to three developments in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which
have greatly affected the history, the theory, and practice of diplomacy and which have impacted
significantly on foreign policies. These are:
(i) The "growing sense of the community of nations,"
(ii) The "increasing appreciation of the importance of public opinion" and
(iii) The "rapid increase in communications” (Nicholson, 1969)
The first two enlarged the diplomat's functions and enhanced his importance. The
foregoing process stimulated the evolution of the five traditional roles of diplomacy;
Representation, Negotiation, Reporting, Interpretation and Protection. These five pillars of
diplomacy now extend into trade, investments, security, sports and cultural exchanges. However,
by far, the most critical factor that will define international relations in the twenty-first century is
global security.
Therefore, while three developments have greatly affected the history, the theory, and
practice of diplomacy and have impacted significantly on foreign policies in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, only one dominant factor will determine, define and shape the twenty-first
century: Global Security. The post-cold war era will witness compelling sustained cooperation and
collaboration among the nation states in the international system.
Global Security up to the Cold War
Global Security had always been a cause of concern since the advent of the modern state.
The traditional security paradigm refers to a realist construct of security in which the referent
object of security is the state. The prevalence of this theorem reached a peak during the Cold War.
For a very long time, major world powers entrusted the security of their states to a balance
of power among nation states. In this sense, global stability relied on the premise that if state
security is maintained, then the security of citizens will necessarily follow (Bajpai,
2000). Traditional security relied on the anarchistic balance of power, a military build-up between
the United States and the Soviet Union (the two superpowers), and on the absolute sovereignty of
the nation state (Owen, 2004). States were deemed to be rational entities, national interests and
policy driven by the desire for absolute power (Bajpai, 2000). Security was seen as protection from
invasion; executed during proxy conflicts using technical and military capabilities.
Indeed, since the previous centuries till date, one of the greatest challenges to statecraft is
the task to establish an international framework that would contain international violence and

4
prevent future wars with their devastating consequences (Gordon and Alexander, 1995). This is
against the background that violent conflict is an intrinsic and inevitable phenomenon in human
society. Hence, as interactions occur and interests coincide, conflicts are likely to occur. For as
long as this is so, then the need to devise an international system that would guarantee peace will
always be there so that mankind can realize one of its major preoccupations on how to ensure
social, political and economic development. This is hinged on quality diplomatic relations both at
the bilateral and multilateral levels. Global security has come to strengthen the course of diplomacy
across centuries and continents. This paper reiterates that global security will continue to be a
compelling factor in diplomatic relations in the twenty-first century.
The need for peace among states and nation states was what necessitated the creation of
balance of power in world politics. For realists, balance of power is the most reliable strategy to
maintain peace and order in the international system. No wonder the trade finance relations among
states are often explained in terms of balance of power.
On a general note, balance of power is as old as the human society. According to David
Hume, the notion prevailed even in ancient Greece (Hume, 1990). Kissinger’s discussion of the
origin of the balance of power concept has traced it to the city states of ancient Greece, Renaissance
Italy and European state system which arose out of the peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648
(Kissinger, 1994). Dougherty and Pfiltzgraff also argue that the concept was implicit in ancient
India and in ancient Greece even though it was not formalized (Kissinger, 1994). The quest for
corporate global security is evident from the time.
Yet, in spite of the old nature of the concept of balance of power, the concept does not
enjoy universally acceptable definition as there are as many definitions as there are many scholars
in the field. Hans Morgenthau, a well-known exponent of this theory, refers to balance of power
as the refund state of affairs in which power is distributed among several nations with approximate
equality (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, 1990). In the words of Quincy Wright, “It is a system
designed to maintain a continuous conviction in any state that if it attempts, aggression, it would
encounter an invincible combination of others” (Quincy, 1983). In other words, it implies such a
distribution of power in a multi-state system that no single state would be able, with impunity, to
overrun the other states. The history of the application of balance of power in interaction among
states dates to the emergence of the international system itself. This was in 1648, when the treaties
of muster and Osnabruck were signed which granted sovereignty and full independence to
European states. The peace treaties collectively called the Peace Treaty of Westphalia recognized
the need to maintain a measure of equilibrium in the power of the newly recognized sovereign
states that were emerging across Europe.
In 1713, after the end of the Spanish war of succession, the treaty of Utrecht was signed
and the balance of power was significantly maintained which signifies peace among European
states. Similar trend also existed in the treaty of Paris, which was signed after the seven years’ war
in 1763. Under this treaty arrangement, France was allowed to keep much of its territory, so as not
to alter the balance of power arrangement which already existed among European powers during
this period.
During this period, efforts were maintained to keep the balance by ensuring that territorial
compensation of the expense of the lesser states did not tilt the balance in favor of one particular

5
state. This was maintained until the mid-18th
century following the rise of Prussia to a big power
status. This development was at the expense of Austria and France, which resulted into
disequilibrium in central Europe. At the same time England had attained naval supremacy at the
expense of Holland and entered naval rivalry with France.
In the last quarter of the 18th
century, the structure of power distribution in Europe became
dislocated in favor of France and this condition became prominent in the course of the Napoleonic
wars. France was able to challenge all of Europe and resisted the entire continent combined
successfully for over a decade. It is therefore easy to understand why the leaders of Europe that
gathered in Vienna in 1814 and 1914 tried and re-instated the balance of power. At the Vienna
Congress, territories were accordingly redistributed with the principle of balance of power in mind.
This structure remained in place until the outbreak of World War I in 1914.
Before the outbreak of the First World War, the unification of Germany and Italy also upset
the existing balance of power in Europe. Austria, which lost northern Italy, was not compensated
elsewhere in Europe. This signalled her decline from big power status. In the same vein, France
lost Alsace and Lorraine to Germany unification and was not compensated elsewhere in
Europe. The principal reason for this was the phenomenon of militant nationalism, which
pervaded Europe from the late 19th
century and the outbreak of World War I.
The inter war years’ era (1919-1939) was a major turning point in the development of
international relations and the issue of world peace in the other hand. More importantly, during
this period, World leaders thought that the League of Nations being the first universal multipurpose
international organization since the history of mankind would be a proper replacement for the
balance of power security strategy. This was basically because the League was to promote the
concept of collective security and dissuade nation states that intended to impose their hegemony
on global politics. However, since the study of the balance of power in contemporary time has an
unending dialogue with the past, it is therefore critical to examine how the concept of balance of
power had been operated as a security strategy before the inter war years and beyond (Carr, 1946).
At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 and 1920, the leaders of the post-World War I period
were convinced that balance of power system, especially the alliance system established in the late
18th
century caused the First World War. In the new structure of the post-world war I period,
therefore, the balance of power was totally abandoned and rejected. Alternatively, the World
leaders led by the American president, Woodrow Wilson, established the system of collective
security under the auspices of the League of Nations. The League began to function with high
hopes. Indeed, the preamble to the League document stated that the organization was established
to end wars forever.
The League of Nations’ life span is divided into four distinctive periods, namely from
1920-1923, 1924-1931; 1932-1936 and 1936-1945 when the League eventual collapsed
(Plowright, 2007). Indeed, between 1920 and 1923, the League made some tremendous successes.
For example, the fallout between Germany and Poland in the German-Polish border was resolved.
Apart from that, the League intervened between France and Germany especially when France
hastily occupied Ruhr in attempt to collect the war indemnity or reparation imposed on Germany.
As it should be recalled that the victorious powers were unanimous to put the war guilt on

6
Germany, which was carefully crafted in the Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty. The League,
within this period also put in place mechanism of operations for the collective security system
which replaced the concept of balance of power that was jettisoned at the Paris Peace Treaty.
In the second period of the League of Nations, Germany applied and joined the League,
and the organization equally faced international issues that could bring about world peace. Indeed,
the organization got involved during the second period on the issue of disarmament as it was
thought that accumulation of arms was a major factor that led to the outbreak of World War I
(Plowright, 2007).
The third period of the League existence marked the beginning of the end of the
organization. During this period, numerous developments in the international system created
problems the League was unable to handle. The first of the major crises started in 1931 when Japan
invaded Manchuria and China and refused to abide by the League’s intervention. Germany later
withdrew from the League and attacked Czechoslovakia and Poland, which culminated in the
outbreak of World War II. During the final stage of the League’s life span, Italy under Benito
Mussolini invaded the Greek Island of Corfu and in 1935 conquered Abyssinia, the Ethiopian
capital to avenge the humiliation of the Italian forces at the battle in 1896.
In all these, the collective security system put in place by the League of Nations could not
serve a balance principle established in 1919. Indeed, recourse to war as an instrument of state
policy in the inter war years convinced world leaders and scholars of the period that the post-World
War I structure of the international system that was based on collective security and the
democratization of the conduct of global politics was grossly inadequate to prevent wars among
states (Plowright, 2007). Accordingly, at the end of World War II in 1945, balance of power
quickly returned as a way of checking aggression among states.
The Cold War Global Security Apparatus
The Allies were concerned with the brutal leadership of Joseph Stalin as well as the spread
of communism. The Cold War was fought between the superpowers of the United States and the
Soviet Union in something called a proxy war. Cold War was the open, yet restricted rivalry that
developed between the USA and erstwhile USSR and their respective allies after World War II.
The war was waged on political, economic and propaganda fronts and had only limited recourse
to weapons. The term was first used by the English writer, George Orwell, in an article published
in 1945 to refer to what he predicted would be a nuclear stalemate between “two or three monstrous
super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few
seconds.” It was first used in the United States by the American financier and presidential
adviser Bernard Baruch in a speech at the State House in Columbia, South Carolina, in 1947.
Although not consciously designed, the arms racing, alliance seeking and assertive
interventionism of the rival camps during the Cold War ensured that the balance of power became
prominent from the late 1940s and 1989 (Aworawo, 2005). During this period, the balance of
power became a balance of terror in an international atmosphere of mutual assured destruction
(MAD). The development of Thermo nuclear weapons and the intercontinental ballistic missile in
the late 1940s and during the 1950s, with the capacity to annihilate humanity, ensured that the

7
balance of power, occupied the center stage of global politics from the end of the Cold War to the
21st
century (Aworawo, 2005).
As Cold War tensions receded, it became clear that the security of citizens was threatened
by hardships arising from internal state activities as well as external aggressors. Civil wars were
increasingly common and compounded the existing poverty, disease, hunger, violence and human
rights abuses. Traditional security policies had effectively masked these underlying basic human
needs in the face of state security. Through neglect of its constituents, nation states had failed in
their primary objectives (Baylis, 1997).
In the historical debate on how best to achieve national security, writers
like Hobbes, Machiavelli and Rousseau tended to paint a rather pessimistic picture of the
implications of state sovereignty. The international system was viewed as a rather brutal arena in
which states would seek to achieve their own security at the expense of their neighbors. Interstate
relations were seen as a struggle for power, as states constantly attempted to take advantage of
each other. According to this view, permanent peace was unlikely to be achieved. All that states
could do was to try to balance the power of other states to prevent anyone from achieving
overall hegemony. This view was shared by writers such as E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau
(Baylis, 2001).
More recently, the traditional state-centric notion of security has been challenged by more
holistic approaches to security. Among the approaches which seek to acknowledge and address
these basic threats to human safety and global security by extension are paradigms that include
cooperative, comprehensive and collective measures, aimed to ensure security for the individual
and, as a result, for the state and the international system at large.
To enhance international security against potential threats caused by terrorism and
organized crime, there have been increases in international cooperation, resulting in transnational
policing (Arcadia, 2004). The International Police (Interpol) share information across international
borders and this cooperation has been greatly enhanced by the arrival of the Internet and the ability
to instantly transfer documents, films and photographs worldwide. Thus, both diplomacy and
global security have been greatly enhanced by the persistent improvement in communication
technology.
Investing in the armed forces is back in fashion. Since the end of the Cold War, the foreign
policy of many West European countries, including the Netherlands, seemed to be based on three
assumptions: wars between European countries were something of the past, wars outside Europe
were of no direct concern to Europe and, anyway, the United States would come to the rescue if
things would go wrong. These assumptions were built on wishful thinking, but they provided the
Netherlands government a welcome excuse to focus its diplomacy on economic interests, to
economize on international cooperation and to neglect its armed forces. Indeed, when one
believes that foreign policy is mainly about promoting economic interests, why invest in the
armed forces? The Russian military involvements in Ukraine, the flood of refugees from the
South, the terroristic threat in Europe and ominous remarks of the President of the United States,
have disproved all three assumptions. Threat to global security is real. As a result, the
requirements of an effective army are taken seriously again. This makes sense (although it

8
remains to be seen whether the necessary funds will indeed be made available), but it is not
sufficient. First of all, a well-trained and well-equipped army is an instrument of security policy,
not a substitution for diplomacy. On the contrary, an arms build-up can be destabilizing, unless it
is combined with a simultaneous investment in diplomacy and arms control. The stronger the
forces, the greater the need is of cooperation with potential adversaries to prevent brinkmanship
and misunderstanding with potentially grave consequences.
Cooperating with non-like-minded countries is probably the most difficult part of
diplomacy, but also the most essential part. It cannot be handled as a footnote to economic
diplomacy. It requires long-term investment in personal relations, in knowledge and in
institutions. Secondly, increasing the defense budget will do little to address the root causes of
international insecurity. To address poverty, bad governance, corruption, climate change among
others. It is essential to increase investments in international cooperation and regional
collaboration.
In the course of the 1960s and 1970s, however, the bipolar struggle between the Soviet and
American blocs gave way to a more-complicated pattern of international relationships in which
the world was no longer split into two clearly opposed blocs. A major split had occurred between
the Soviet Union and China in 1960 and widened over the years, shattering the unity of the
communist bloc. In the meantime, Western Europe and Japan achieved dynamic economic
growth in the 1950s and 1960s, reducing their relative inferiority to the United States. Less-
powerful countries had more room to assert their independence and often showed themselves
resistant to superpower coercion or cajoling.
The 1970s saw an easing of Cold War tensions as evinced in the Strategic Arms Limitation
Talks (SALT) that led to the SALT I and II agreements of 1972 and 1979, respectively, in which
the two superpowers set limits on their antiballistic missiles and on their strategic missiles capable
of carrying nuclear weapons. That was followed by a period of renewed Cold War tensions in the
early 1980s as the two superpowers continued their massive arms build-up and competed for
influence in the Third World.
However, the Cold War began a gradual but progressive breakdown in the late 1980s
during the administration of Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev. He dismantled the totalitarian
aspects of the Soviet system and began efforts to democratize the Soviet political structure. When
Communist regimes in the Soviet-bloc countries of Eastern Europe collapsed in 1989–90,
Gorbachev acquiesced in their fall. The rise to power of democratic governments in East
Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia was quickly followed by the unification of West
and East Germany under NATO auspices, again with Soviet approval.
Gorbachev’s internal reforms had meanwhile weakened his own Communist Party and
allowed power to shift to Russia and the other constituent republics of the Soviet Union. In late
1991 the Soviet Union collapsed and 15 newly independent nations were born from its corpse,
including a Russia with a democratically elected, anticommunist leader. The Cold War had come
to an end.

9
Diplomacy, Global Security and the New World Order
Immediately after the cold war, diplomacy assumed a more critical role in the international
system, especially in the face of global security which necessitated a compelling sustained
cooperation and collaboration among the nation states in the international system. Diplomacy
indeed has remained a veritable instrument of sustaining global security. As a matter of fact from
the popular “9/11”, The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11) in which there were a series
of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda against the United
States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people, injured
over 6,000 others, and caused at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage (Matthew,
2009). Additional people died of 9/11-related cancer and respiratory diseases in the months and
years following the attacks (Matthew, 2009). The other records of eventual deaths and infections
as a consequence of the attacks are still being compiled.
America was livid with national rage; suspicion of possible source(s) of such dastardly
attack in no distant time fell on al-Qaeda. The United States responded by launching the War on
Terror and invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had failed to comply with U.S.
demands to extradite Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda from Afghanistan.
Other states in the international system strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and
expanded the powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent terrorist attacks.
Although Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda's leader, initially denied any involvement in the September
11 attacks, in 2004 he claimed responsibility for the attacks (Moghadam, 2008). Al-Qaeda and bin
Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and sanctions
against Iraq as their motives for the attack. After evading for almost a decade, bin Laden was
located in Pakistan and killed by SEAL Team Six of the U.S. Navy in May 2011.
It is instructive to note, that the September 11, 2001, came to be a defining phenomenon
for the diplomatic architecture of the international system. President George Bush clearly began
to view the diplomatic international relations with the lens of September 11. Within hours of the
September 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., American commentators were
already comparing the event to a “new Pearl Harbor.” The 60th anniversary of that transformative
event was coming up later in the year, and had been the subject of a major Hollywood movie over
the summer. The comparison of September 11 with Pearl Harbor was natural because both were
surprise attacks that killed many Americans, but most interesting about it was its implication: that
an age of innocence and isolation had passed, and that American invulnerability was gone.
Just as was the case after the Japanese attack (and again in a different way when the Soviet
Union launched the Sputnik satellite some 16 years later), September 11 seemed fated to change
radically and permanently the degree to which, and the way in which, the United States engaged
with the rest of the world. It was indeed a defining moment and phenomenon with tremendous
impact on diplomacy and global security.
It is probably too soon to say for certain whether September 11 will prove to be such a
“paradigm shift” along the lines of 1941 (when America abandoned isolationism), 1947 (when
containment became the lens through which foreign policy was seen), or 1989 (when the “post-

10
Cold War era” began). Much will depend on how the Administration responds, and whether it is
able to maintain the level of focus and commitment to terrorism since the initial emotion and anger
about the attack has substantially subsided. The fight against terrorism has become the defining
issue for the American foreign policy makers since the Bush presidency. The political and
psychological impact of the September 11 attacks will have long term implications for the ways in
which the United States engages in the world. Even recent meetings of the US President with North
Korean leader are informed by diplomacy and global security.
The end of the Cold War led to new security challenges, because of changing notions of
military force and the new sources of security threat (Smith, 2006; Shaw, 2005). The first one is
related to the rise of nuclear power. With the demise of the USSR, the simple bipolarity of the
Cold War world was replaced by a multipolar world, where the centrality of power was no longer
clearly defined (Brown, 2005; Jackson and Sorensen, 2003). The rise of the Asian economic
powers, the advance of nuclear and biological weapons in countries such as Iran, Israel and Iraq
challenged the stability of the mutual deterrence principle, comfortably sustained during the Cold
War (Hammes, 2005).
Another source of security threat after the Cold War was related to terrorism, and the rise
of sub-state actors (Smith, 2006). The War on terror, embedded in the Bush doctrine, was a clear
demonstration of the changing nature of war, and the elusive image of the new enemy (Shaw,
2005). After 9/11, it became clear that terrorism was not a war against an enemy, but against the
tactics (Baylis and Smith, 2007). Its manifestations and capacity to destroy were as much the result
of political construction, as of historically embedded perceptions about the East and the West and
their manipulation by mass media and policy-makers.
In the post-Cold War era, non-state actors, such as Al Qaeda and Hamas, became a new
source of security threat because of their ability to operate internationally, but at the same time to
exist inside the state (Shaw, 2005). Also, the controversies, around states labeled as rogue and
unable to comply with the international standards for peace and democracy such as Afghanistan,
Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Syria necessitated new means for meeting the challenges to threat
and security.
Conclusion
It has become obvious that only by developing a new security concept and establishing a
fair and reasonable new international order can world peace and security be fundamentally
guaranteed. Several Research Institutes, academic circles, professionals, diplomats and
practitioners provide analyses that help policymakers understand political, military, and economic
trends around the world; the sources of potential regional conflict; and emerging threats to the
global security environment as well as possible mitigating strategies including greater diplomatic
engagements and continuous collaborative strategies to combat the dynamic global insecurity
apparatus.
As NATO finalizes its new political guidance designed to shape future military forces, it
has the chance to both strengthen Europe’s commitment to burden-sharing and relieve American
concern about the creation of a new European Army. Building an enhanced European capacity
within NATO entails some risk, but the benefits may outweigh concerns. Global security is a

11
serious business. This short paper and International Studies in general provide knowledge of world
affairs, develop an understanding and appreciation of other cultures, civilizations and societies,
illustrate possible frictions and threats to global security and world peace and promote informed
analysis of global interdependence.
References
Akadiri, O. (2003). Diplomacy, World peace and security Akure: Ondo State
Government Printing Press, p. 240.
Arcudi, G. (2004). “Forces de police et forces armées, sécurité et défense: où sont les frontières”? Cahier
du GIPRI (2) 17–64.
Aworawo, D. (2005). The affirmation of things past: Trends and the structure of the
international system since Potsdam, Nigeria Journal of Policy and Development, 4
Bajpai, K. (2000). "Human security: Concept and measurement" (PDF). University of
Notre Dame, Kroc Institute Occasional Paper No. 19. Accessed on 2018-06-28.
Baylis, J. (1997). International security in the post-cold war era, in J. Baylis and S.
Smith (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Baylis, J. (2001). The globalization of world politics, fifth edition. New York: Oxford
Buzan, B. and Hansen, L. (2009). The evolution of international security studies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzen, B. et al. (1998). Security: A new frame work for analysis. In C.O Boulder,
P. Doty and A. Carnesale (eds). International Security 1(1) Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Carr, E. H. (1946). The twenty years crisis, 1919-1939 London: Macmillan, p. 40.
University Press Inc. p. 234.
Gordon, G. and Alexander, G. (1995). Force and state craft: Diplomatic problems of our
times. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 43.
Kishan, S.R. (2011). 21st
Century Diplomacy – A Practitioner Guide, Key Studies in Diplomacy.
England Continuum International Publishing Group.
Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 56.
Moghadam, A. (2008). The Globalization of Martyrdom: Al Qaeda, Salafi Jihad, and the
Diffusion of Suicide Attacks. Johns Hopkins University, p. 48.
Morgan, M.J. (2009). The Impact of 9/11 on Politics and War: The Day that Changed Everything?.
Palgrave Macmillan. p. 222.
Nicolson, H. (1946). The Congress of Vienna, A Study in Allied Unity: 1812-1822. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, p.46

12
Nicolson, H. (1969). Diplomacy, London: Oxford University Press, p.44.
Owen, T. (2004). Challenges and opportunities for defining and measuring human security,
Human Rights, Human Security and Disarmament, Disarmament Forum. 3, 15–24
Quincy, W. (1983). A Study of War. University of Chicago Press.
Rana, K.S. (2011). 21st Century Diplomacy - A Practitioner's Guide; Key Studies in
Diplomacy. England: Continuum International Publishing Group, p.67.
Strategy and Ethnic Conflict and Path to Peace (ISBN 1590337328) among many others)
(ISBN 027597636X)

Political Parties and the Nature of Opposition Politics in Nigeria
13
1Julius L. Ngomba, 2Jacho David Sunday Ph.D and 3Ayuba D. Mgbegah Ph.D
1
Department of Political Science and International Relations, Taraba State University, Jalingo.
2
Department of Political Science, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nasarawa State.
3
Department of Sociology, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria
E-mail address: ngombajulius@yahoo.com boyisunday60@gmail.com
ayubadandoka1966@gmail.com
Abstract
Opposition political parties in Nigeria have been battling with the politics of zero sum game where
the winner takes all and the loser loses all in a democratic setting since political independence in
1960. The ruling party uses powers of incumbency, state treasury, state apparatus and all
advantages of power to emasculate and dominate the political arena. This paper examines the role
that All Progressive Congress (APC) and the People Democratic Party (PDP) played as the major
opposition political parties in the Fourth Republic. The role of opposition is sacrosanct as it is
essential to the smooth running of any representative democracy, the paper recommends that
government should, therefore, at all levels strive to do away with any policy that will thwart the
effort of opposition because in Nigeria most of the weaknesses of the opposition parties emanate
from the incumbents’ hostile policies, which are mostly aimed at fragmenting and weakening the
opposition groups.
Keywords: Democracy, Opposition, Politics, Political Parties and Republic
Introduction
The central role played by political parties in the development and nurturing of a virile
democracy and its consolidation cannot be overstated. Where democracy survives for a long period
of time, it is because political parties, among other vital institutions, are well established, and have
played the role expected of them party politics were introduced in Nigeria in 1922 via the Clifford
Constitution, however, its major impediment was the restriction on political participation and
representation. The political parties were limited in terms of number, only two of them: the
Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP) and the Lagos Youth Movement (LYM) that
emerged in 1934. Their activities were limited to the coastal towns, especially Lagos for the LYM
and Lagos and Calabar for the NNDP. This was coupled with the fact that only four people were
elected in the polls (Omodia, 2010). Nigeria has come a long way since 1922 in terms of the
number and spread of political parties. The number of political parties and their spread seem to
give the impression that representation has become an important requirement for the existence of
political parties. For example, one of the requirements stipulated for the registration of political
parties in the political transition to the Nigerian Fourth Republic was that aspiring political

14
associations needed to garner at least ten percent of the votes in twenty four out of the thirty six
states to qualify for permanent registration (Aina, 2002).
The foregoing requirement seems to suggest that political parties were expected to really
show capacity to represent the people. However, in the preparation for the 1999 elections, this
requirement had to be watered down to avoid the emergence of a two party system. This was why
the Alliance for Democracy was registered as the third party in 1999 (Aina, 2002). Since that time,
there has been an exponential growth in the number of political parties, and this has given the
impression that the grounds of representation have increased. The number of political parties has
grown from three in 1999 to thirty in 2002, fifty in 2007 and about ninety-one today. However,
instead of this meaning more representation, it has not. As the number of parties increased their
relevance in terms of being channels of representation has diminished (Egwemi, 2009). In fact, the
existence of political parties seems to have major threat to political representation in Nigeria today.
This paper examines the activities of political parties and opposition politics in Nigeria
with the aim of understanding the development of party politics in Nigeria. It argues that the
existence of political parties has not meant political representation in Nigeria. Before going into
the discussion, however, a clarification of the key concepts of Political Parties and Opposition
Parties is attempted in the next section.
Conceptual Clarifications
Democracy
Democracy is essentially a system of government in which the people control decision
making. It is a system of government that ensures that power actually belongs to the people
(Omotola, 2006). According to Schumpeter, democracy entails “institutional arrangement for
arriving at political decisions, which realizes the common good by making the people decide issues
through the election of individuals, who are two assemblies in order to carry out its will” (cited in
Omotola, 2006, p.27). It is an “institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which
individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote”
(Omotola, 2006, p.27). Democracy, therefore, from the perspective of this paper is viewed as a
governmental process which encompasses the competition for power in order to control political
decisions in an atmosphere where civil liberties are exercised.
Political Parties
Political parties are indispensable links between the people and the representative
machinery of government. They serve as the motive force in the crystallizing public opinion and
as the unifying government agency which make democracy work. A political party is
conceptualized as a group of individuals united in principles and decision making with a common
goal which is pursued through a democratic process of election.
Liberal view of political parties denotes that they are agencies of an organized public
opinion, which operate within a political system just like a machine or a platform for taking part
in the struggle for power democratically. The Marxist views political parties as instruments for
power, domination and oppression of the proletariat which must lead to struggles where the mass
party will emerge to overthrow the existing elite capitalist parties for an egalitarian society.

15
Political parties may be defined by their common aim. They seek political power either
singly or in cooperation with other political parties. In this wise, Schumpeter has opined; the first
and foremost aim of each political party is to prevail over the others in order to get into power or
to stay in it” (Schumpeter, 1961, p. 279). The distinguishing factor from other groups in a political
system is this goal of attaining and/or maintaining political power.
Adigun Agbaje has identified three characteristics that distinguish political parties from
other seemingly similarly constituted organizations. These are;
i. It is a label in the minds of its members and the wider public, especially the elect.
ii. It is an organization that recruits and campaigns for candidates seeking election and
selection into public political office.
iii. It is a set of leaders who try to organize and control the legislative and executive branches
of government (Agbaje, 1999, p.195).
Political parties as one of the most important democratic institutions perform many
functions in a democracy as identified by many scholars. Some of these functions include: unite
and stabilize the political process; struggling for capturing of power; providing a link between the
government and the people; recruitment of political leaders; setting values for the society; brokers
of ideas; political modernization most especially in developing democracies; social welfare
functions and the role of societal watchdog or opposition. The conception of this paper therefore
is that political parties are the political structures and organizations through which people seek
political offices, especially in a democratic setting.
Development of Party Politics in Nigeria
The development of political parties in Nigeria must be understood against the wider
context of how the political system has developed since independence, as well as in relation to the
sense of deterioration of the institutions of governance since the return to democracy in 1999.
Nigeria is governed by a presidential system. Over the decades, and following the experience of
military rule, the country has seen a centralization of power in the hands of the executive and a
progressive weakening of the federal pact upon which Nigeria was founded. However, as political
power has been concentrated in the center and in the hands of the executive branch, an intricate
body of informal rules of political interaction has also evolved, including through the experience
of civil war (the Biafra war) and military rule, by which power is brokered in a way that achieves
a sense of stability-at least among elites (Domingo and Nwankwo, 2010, p.3).
At the inception of party politics in 1923, precisely on 24th
June, 1923, following the
introduction of the elective principle of the Clifford constitution, Nigerian political parties had
very limited and self-serving objectives. The main objective was, perhaps, that of buying
legitimacy for the colonial government through very limited franchise restricted to Lagos and
Calabar. Richard Sklar, in his seminal work, Nigerian Political Parties, clearly demonstrates how
the emergence of political associations, such as the Peoples Union, was only in response to the
prevailing realities of colonial administration (Sklar, 1963; Coleman, 1958 cited in Omotola, 2009,
p.620). Little wonder, when the first political party in Nigeria, the Nigerian National Democratic
Party (NNDP) emerged in 1923, under the leadership of Herbert Macaulay, its activities were
restricted to contesting elections into the Lagos City Council. For years, the UNDP was hegemonic

16
in its dominance in electoral politics? In the country. This was to be challenged by the Lagos Youth
Movement - later the Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM) which was formed in 1934 and which
defeated the NNDP in the elections for the three seats allocated to Lagos that year.
By 1944, the increasing tempo of nationalist agitation had resulted in the formation of
another political party – the National Council of Nigeria and Cameroon (NCNC), under the
leadership of Herbert Macaulay and later Nnamdi Azikwe (Sklar, 1968, pp.46-50 cited in Omotola,
2009, p.620). This was followed, in quick succession, by the transformation of the Egbe Omo
Oduduwa, a Yoruba socio-cultural organization, into a political party, the Action Group (AG) in
1950 under the leadership of Chief Obafemi Awolowo and the Northern People Congress (NPC)
in 1959 with dominance in the northern region. By 1951, a breakaway faction of the NPC
consisting mainly of radical youths based in Kano formed the Northern Element 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.
Historically, Nigeria’s political party formations have been characterized by mobilization
leaders, who as founder-leaders, exercised a tremendous influence. Notable examples of such
leaders were Obafemi Awolowo of the AG and Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), and Nnamdi Azikwe
of the NCNC and National Peoples Party (NPP) in the First and Second Republics (1960–1966,
and 1979–1938), respectively. In addition, Sir Ahmadu Bello and Tafawa Balewa were the icons
of the NPC in the First Republic, who, though not alive by the Second Republic, nonetheless
commanded a mythical presence and inspiration within the NPN in the Second Republic. Such
leaders influenced party nominations and other internal party processes to the extent of
compromising internal party democracy (Agbaje and Adejumobi, 2006, p.39).
After the second interregnum of military rule (1983–1999), the nature and texture of party
politics changed. Political parties were no longer guided by an ideology or specific focus; they
were not led by a mobilization leader who could drive and guide their actions and policies, and
inspire internal cohesion and discipline. Political parties assumed the character of electoral
machines, whose sole aim was to win political power through the ballot. Aspirants were mostly
individual actors sponsored by some powerful individuals; because the cost of electioneering had
now become astronomical.
Over three decades of military rule, distorted social values and undermined democratic
institutions in Nigeria, political parties and civil society inclusive, it was worse for the
development of the country's party system. The political parties were in complete limbo, and
almost near extinction, courtesy of the numerous military coups and counter-coups that punctuated
Nigeria's political history. The rise and fall of the Nigerian military are well documented in the
literature on politics and development in Nigeria. Suffice to say, however, that the military held
all democratic institutions captive between 1966 (when they first struck) and 1999 (when they
retreated in humiliation), except for their occasional ceremonious “stepping aside.”
Weak structures and ineffective operations of political parties made things worse for the electoral
environment in the country. Well-functioning political parties are essential for the success of
democracy. However, in the particular case of Nigeria, there are limited opportunities for the
development of political parties.

17
Nature of Nigerian Political Parties
Most of the African political parties, including that of Nigeria, emerged from the
decolonization process through nationalist movement which mobilized citizens for independence.
Thus, African political parties and African democracies at large suffered from traumatic
experiences such as revolution, decolonization, independence or severe repression during
authoritarian or military regimes. The above denotes that political parties in most African countries
and Nigeria in particular by their nature are devoid of ideological or nationalistic values but rather
decolonization and later serving other purposes. Such has been the nature of political parties in
Nigeria since political independence.
The first set of political parties that emerged in Nigeria were during colonial rule the
dominant three were Action Group (AG) for Yoruba West, Northern People’s Congress for
Northern Hausa/Fulani Muslims and National Council for Nigeria and Cameroons (NCNC). They
looked ethnic and regional in nature and set the foundation for such outlook in future Nigerian
political parties. In the Second Republic, five political parties emerged, namely, NPN, UPN,
GNPP, PRP and NPP with the replica of the First Republic party characteristics and orientation.
The party system also indicated a multi-party arrangement in both the First and the Second
Republic’s. In the Aborted Third Republic, only two parties were registered which were the
National Republican Convention (NRC) and Social Democratic Party (SDP).
In the Fourth Republic, multi-party system was reintroduced again where from 1999 to
date more than fifty political parties were registered, but the PDP dominated power control from
1999 until 2015 when it was defeated by APC. One major characteristic of Nigerian political
parties, apart from being ethnic and regional in outlook, is the unofficial domination of one party
without allowing the opposition to play any significant role. This has been the trend since the First
Republic, Second Republic and the Fourth Republic.
Opposition in a Democracy
The liberal democracy, as it is known today, is a result of protracted struggles and
revolutions in Europe between 17 - 19th centuries as led by social forces whose interests and roles
were internally linked with the use of capitals (Mmegi, 2009). The Network of Ethiopian Scholars
(NES) Scandinavian Chapter, in her June 30, 2005, release, ‘’puts the opposition in a democracy
in perspective’’ argued that in a democracy, there are many types of people who ordinarily wish
to stand for election, some may even be people who do not share the same world view. And once
an election is held, which is regarded as free and fair, and a set of the people succeeded in
persuading the majority public who got more votes than their competitors, it is a fact that those
that lost the election have to live with the victorious ones within the period of the rule, as
guaranteed by the constitution, and the losers must be ready to wait till the next election.
The operative and operational position, hence, is “free and fair election”. This appears to
be utopian, especially in the less developed economies of the world. There cannot be any perfect
election anywhere in the world because it is a human endeavor. There can, however, be an election
that can be regarded as generally representative of the views of the majority of the electorate.
Where an election is characterized by rigging, manipulation, violence, thuggery, inadequacy or

18
insufficiency of electoral materials, substantial noncompliance with electoral rules, it may be
difficult to conceptualize the position of the opposition to such regimes.
It must be emphasized that irrespective of how a government emerged, the way to get such
government replaced can only be through the instrumentality of the law. By parity of reasoning,
the Supreme Court, in the case of ACB versus Rossek (1993), in deciding on what could be done
where a court has given a decision that is patently wrong, or apparently perverse, has expressed
that the only option available to the aggrieved is to obey the order and take appropriate legitimate
and legal steps to redress the wrong. He cannot unilaterally refuse to obey the lawful order of the
court. The alternative is anarchy. In the same vein, where an electoral body has decided on the
winner of an electoral contest, the loser must abide by that decision until same is changed by the
election petition tribunal usually put in place by the constitution.
The term “leader of opposition” dates back to 1807 in the United Kingdom, where it
emerged initially through the practice in terms of which the leader of a political party not in
government with the largest representation in parliament was designated as leader of opposition.
This practice later crystallized into a constitutional custom and convention. This convention was
eventually given statutory recognition in the passing of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937
wherein section 10 (1) provides. “The leader of the opposition means a member of the House of
Common’s who is for the time being the leader of the House of the party in opposition to His
Majesty’s Government which has the greatest numerical strength in the house.” Section 10 (3)
provides further that if any doubt arises as to which is or was at the material time of the party in
opposition to His Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of
Commons or as who is or was at the material time of the leader in that house of such party, the
question shall be decided for purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons and
his decision shall be final and conclusive. Since 1937, when this Act was put in place in the United
Kingdom, the leader of opposition has enjoyed certain rights and privileges which include getting
paid the same salary as government ministers, an official car, and official residence. The same
situation prevails in Commonwealth countries like Australia, Canada and New Zealand. In
Botswana, the salaries and allowances act gives the Speaker's authority to designate the leader of
opposition without any mechanism provided by the act for designating such a leader. However, in
the workings of the state, the speaker usually consults the opposition members of Parliament to
determine who they want as a leader.
In the United States of America, there is no designation of opposition in the sense that we
have it in the United Kingdom. There exists two party system where a party receives the support
of a majority of all voters and thus, is given a clear title to govern the country. Because of the
peculiarities of the electoral system in the United States, it is technically possible for one party to
win control of one or both Houses of Congress. It was reported that in the 1956 election, the
Republicans elected a President and Democrats won control of Congress for the first time since
1848 (Carr, 1951). This state of affairs has repeated itself many times thereafter. What usually
happens is that the minority party is usually given the opportunity of choosing a minority leader
that usually has some rights and privileges, as any other leader in the Congress.
In Nigeria, the leader of opposition arrangement was put in place in the First Republic in
line with what operated in the United Kingdom. Chief Obafemi Awolowo became leader of
opposition in the First Republic while it lasted. When the First Republic collapsed, the American

19
Presidential system was introduced and the Unity Party of Nigeria produced the Minority Leader.
The present dispensation has also put in place the position of Minority together with that of
Majority Leader. A new scenario was created in Ekiti State where both the People’s Democratic
Party (PDP) and the Action Congress (AC) has an equal number of members in the Ekiti State
House of Assembly. The question of which party is the majority party and which is the minority
party was in issue. This logjam affected the proclamation of the House for a while until a political
solution was put in place where the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) nominated the Speaker and
the Action Congress (AC) nominated the Deputy Speaker. With the sacking of the Governor of
the State by the Court of Appeal sitting in Ilorin and a re-run ordered in a few polling units, the
PDP Speaker was appointed the Acting Governor while the AC Deputy Speaker took over as the
Acting Speaker.
The Ekiti scenario has properly brought to the fore the need for a harmonious relationship
between government and opposition at some point in time. This is because where there is a free
and fair election, the pendulum can change at any time as it is witnessed in the United States of
America where the Republicans and Democrats are elected into government and voted out at any
time or the other. It is not that there are no other parties in the USA. Third parties have in the past
won enough support among voters to threaten the majority parties with the possibility that they
might gain a balance of power in the political scene (Carr, 1951). This situation has forced the
majority parties to pay constant attention to the pressures exerted by third parties and that is the
beauty of democracy.
Role of Opposition
Alabi (2009) argues that the opposition is muffled in many parts of Africa because of
colonial legacies and cultural factors. Democracy in Nigeria will develop if the opposition
appropriately appreciates its role and adequately carries out same with the expected altruistic
motives. In the parliamentary system of government as practiced in the United Kingdom, the tasks
and responsibilities of the leader of opposition are clearly spelt out and are challenging, especially
if the parliamentary duties are considered. Apart from the assigned roles in the Parliament, he is
expected to co-ordinate the activities of his party outside Parliament, especially at the level of mass
struggle if the opposition must effectively challenge the ruling party
There is usually what is called a shadow cabinet which oversees all segments of the
government, provides alternative ideas, and articulates the policies of the party on every policy
decision of the ruling party. The Network of Ethiopian Scholars (NES) articulates the position that
a key component of democracy is the toleration of dissent, and that the only condition is that
dissenters do not engage in violating the rights of others and use of force, deception or fraud to
pursue their interests and goals. The group argues further that as long as they express their
dissenting voices within the bounds of democratic ethos, there is no reason to bar them from
playing an active role in public life.
The foregoing is an area that has to be given a more pragmatic consideration in Nigeria.
Opposition must not be for opposition sake, and it must be devoid of violence and must be within
the globally accepted standard or best practice. The people in government are not angels; they are
human and indeed Nigerians. They are liable to make mistakes and in the same way as the party
in opposition. The only duty an opposition party need’s is to provide an alternative view and this

20
must be properly dissected, articulated and effectively communicated to the general public. NES
ask the question (as if it is directed at the political class in Nigeria): “Why was it not possible to
use debate, dialogue and democratic forum to those whom it thinks have not acknowledged the
regime’s self-validated and justified role as having contributed positive good.”
It must be realized by both government and opposition that the aspiration to be in
government is for one common goal-service to the people. From the dynamics of the happenings
in Nigeria, it is clear that apart from a very few individuals in and out of government, it appears
that the majority of the political class are “crass opportunists”. It has nothing to do with any
political party and neither does it have any coloration of ruling or opposition party.
The result of the various local government elections betrayed the political class. Where the
People’s Democratic Party is the ruling party, all the seats must necessarily be won by that party.
Where the controlling party is the Action Congress, all the Local Government Chairmen invariably
are members of the Action Congress. Equally, where the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) is the
dominant party, then, the seats at the local governments are in the ANPP’s firm control. This trend
portends a grave danger and engenders the possibility of muffling the opposition party and that is
likely to serve as a negative commentary on democratic rule and ideals. This is what the leadership
of the various political parties and those in government swore to uphold.
The oppression and victimization of the opposing elements throughout Nigeria were
identified by Awolowo (1966) as one of the factors which led to the collapse of the First Republic.
Awolowo also argued that dissent is a hallmark of representative democracy (Awolowo, 1981).
The sage argued further: “Surely, Nigeria is big enough under a democratic form of government
to accommodate those in government, on the one hand, and that's not in government, on the other
hand. Besides, there is always more than one side to any issue. It is the congenital intolerance of
the voice of dissent on their part that makes those in government desirous of bringing all articulate
elements within their circle of decisive influence in order to silence and stifle such elements”. The
principle behind this position is unassailable, but the fundamental of its postulation appears faulty.
The position of Awolowo was that, there should not be any arrangement like national or unity
government as it is an attempt to stifle the opposition voice. If the essence of national government
is to ensure that every segment of the society is given a say in government then there should not
be any problem. However, the practice in Nigeria appears to justify the fears expressed by
Awolowo. In principle, the muffling, stifling and compromise of the opposition through the
instrumentality of the national government is a failure of the opposition parties and not that of the
government.
The arrangement of involving all political parties in government is not peculiar to Nigeria.
Such a scheme, according to Carr, makes it often seems a party, especially the one in government,
is more concerned about advancing the desires of its leaders for personal power, prestige and gain
or promoting the interest of a limited few among its followers than in electing its candidates to
office who will carry out the promises that have won it the support of the majority of the voters.
For a party in opposition, it is its function to engage in constant criticisms of the
governmental policies which are formulated by the majority, to scrutinize carefully the manner in
which these policies are administered, and to keep the possibility of alternative legislative policies

21
and administrative practices constantly in the view of the electorate. The major functions of a
political party as identified by Carr are in the main:
(i) Stimulating the citizenry to take a greater interest in the election and activities of
government.
(ii) Defining political issues of the day and sharpen the choice between alternative paths.
(iii) Presenting candidates who are committed to announcing position with respect to the
issues.
(iv) Majority party provides the basis upon which government can be operated.
(v) Accepting the responsibility to govern upon winning the election
It was, then, added that a party must at all times, either in or out of power, constantly ensure
that it gauges the mood of the society on all issues and provides appropriate responsible succor to
the needs of the society at intellectual and applied levels.
Opposition Political Parties in Nigeria
Opposition politics in developing democracies is not a vibrant activity as compared to their
Western counterparts. Most often times, opposition in Nigerian politics is perceived as a threat, an
enemy, distraction and an immoral activity that should not be tolerated. Right from the emergence
of active politics under the British colonialist’s, opposition was never taken lightly by the ruling
party. For instance, in Northern Nigeria, the late Mallam Aminu Kano broke away from Northern
Peoples Congress (NPC) and formed an opposition party in the North; the Northern Element
Progressive Union (NEPU). Such development was perceived and threatened with sharp hostility
from the ruling NPC in the North. There were reports of persecution, intimidation, coercion and
the emasculation of the opposition. In the West, the Action Group crisis in mid 1960s led to a
faction of the party between Obafemi Awolowo and Samuel Akintola leading to persecution of the
opposition within the intra - party crisis.
The above feat of opposition in Nigerian politics in the First Republic was similarly
repeated in the Second Republic between 1979-1984 where the parties were ethnic in orientation
and outlook with NPN representing the majority North; UPN stands for the West; NPP established
in the East and GNPP as an opposition minority party in the North. The NPN won the Presidency
and many states, especially in the North. Opposition parties were suppressed, dominated while the
1983 re-election was allegedly bedeviled with massive rigging by the ruling NPN which rendered
the opposition less relevant in the process.
With the return to democratic rule in the Fourth Republic from 1999 to date, the scenario
which was obtained in the First and Second Republics emerged most forcefully and consolidated
with the ruling PDP dominating almost 80 percent of the total Governorship seats and National
Assembly seats while asserting control of national politics at the Presidency. The ruling PDP
dominated continuously for straight sixteen years, which was the first time as the longest ruling
party in the most stable democracy in the country. The 2003, 2007 and 2011 elections, further
witnessed increase consolidation into power at all levels by the PDP. This domination has not been
without explanation. There were allegations of massive riggings during elections, violence,
corruption, political thuggery, vote buying, divide and rule on opposition parties, intimidation and

22
subjugation of opposition and their stronghold as well as plotting moles in the opposition parties
to scatter the parties and deny them any relevance in challenging the ruling PDP.
However, the above trend was surprisingly and miraculously overturned in the 2015
General Elections where, against all odds, the opposition APC succeeded in overthrowing the
ruling PDP with a landslide victory in an unprecedented history making. This feat that took place
is not without many obvious factors such as the improvement in the electoral body (INEC), the
use of electronic card readers, a strong merger of opposition parties in forming one formidable
party; APC with wire withal for challenging the ruling PDP conveniently, serious national issues
that made the public to detest PDP and have determination for a change such as corruption;
poverty; unemployment; insurgency; illiteracy, etc. Thus, it can be inferred from the above that,
but, for the emergence of stronger APC opposition PDP would have continued beyond 2015.
Loss of steam
To be sure, the PDP started strongly by always “checking” on the APC administration. Mr.
Metuh would issue a statement or address a press conference on policy matters almost on daily
basis. Apart from Mr. Metuh, other outspoken members of the PDP, including a former Minister
of Aviation, Femi Fani-Kayode, a former presidential aide, Doyin Okupe, and the Governor of
Ekiti state, Ayodele Fayose, variously voiced opposition to the policies and programs of the Buhari
administration.
However, along the line, the opposition party lost steam, no thanks to the alleged
involvement of some of its leaders in corrupt practices, which the Buhari administration vowed to
tackle. Mr. Metuh, who should be the arrowhead of the opposition, became one of the accused. He
was alleged to have received, from the office of the National Security Adviser, N400 million from
the $2.1 billion originally meant for arms procurement to fight Boko Haram. The money was
allegedly diverted and used to prosecute the 2015 presidential campaign for President Goodluck
Jonathan and the PDP. The scandal has since been referred to as #Dasukigate by Nigerians.
Metuh’s arrest and subsequent arraignment over the allegation has dealt a serious blow to
the PDP’s ability to check the government of the day and make its positions on national matters
known. Unlike the then ACN, which criticized the Goodluck Jonathan administration when it
increased fuel price in 2010, the PDP, as Nigeria’s main opposition party, virtually kept mum when
the Buhari-led APC government increased the pump price of petrol to N145 from N86.
The opposition party, perhaps, dazed by the corruption allegations against its leaders, and
internal wrangling, could not even issue a statement either in condemnation or support. The only
notable voice from the PDP that kicked against the fuel price was Governor Ayo Fayose of Ekiti
State. Even so, he did not speak officially for the party because it was not his job to do so.
Mr. Fani-Kayode, another outspoken member of the party, who could have kicked against
the increase, was in detention and battling to save himself from the allegation that he, as
spokesperson of the Jonathan Campaign Organization, benefitted from the Dasukigate scandal. It
is therefore safe to assume that many PDP members are unable to voice opposition to the APC
government because of the fear that the ongoing corruption probe will soon get to them

23
Opposition Politics in Nigeria
Opposition politics are an ideological stance taken by groups of politician whose party fail
to win a convincing majority in an election. An ideology can be described as a comprehensive
vision, as a way of looking at things, as in common sense or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant
class of a society to all members of that society (Bello 2000). Ideology in its elementary form is
an organized collection of ideas. It can be seen as a comprehensive vision, a perspective of reality,
or a way of understanding, seeing things and events or actions. An ideology serves as a mirror for
the people, expressing how the people view themselves, and even more importantly, how they
want to be seen by outsiders. Ideology embodies a system of goals and beliefs, or widely held ideas
by members of a society or group.
Ideology, well-articulated signposts the pattern of transition of each society and the
roadmap to change. The utility of ideology is more apparent and alive in its application to the
political realm. Political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or
symbols of a social movement, institution class or large group that explains how society should
work, and offers some political or cultural blueprint for a social order. Political ideology is
concerned with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used.
In societies where democracy has taken root and become firmly consolidated, parties are
delineated by their ideologies. Regrettably, the situation is totally different in Nigeria. Because,
political parties are not delineated ideologically. This may seem to be a product of ideological
confusion, or a total lack of ideology in the development or formation of these parties. There is not
much to differentiate the parties in terms of national posture, it is just a marriage of strange
bedfellows masquerading as political parties. The only fair exception is that of the western part of
Nigeria, where political parties are gaining prominence because of some portrayal of a tinge of
ideological seriousness inherited from their ancestry, the late sage Obafemi Awolowo who was
popularly known as the leader of opposition in the history of Nigeria.
Opposition politics are inevitable in a democratic society. Genuine political opposition is
a necessary attribute of democracy. How can a country be democratic without Opposition parties?
How do you ensure a proper check and balance of a government under the democratic process
without an Opposition? The existence of an opposition, without which politics ceases and
administration takes over, is indispensable to the functioning of democratic political systems.
The division between government and opposition is as old as political democracy itself. In
Aristotle’s Athenian polity, the essence of self-government was that citizens were, in turn, both
the rulers and the ruled. The government could alternate among different groups of citizens, and
the minority could seek to persuade a majority of its point of view by peaceful or political means.
The age of direct democracy has been replaced, with representative systems, providing for periodic
elections. In turn, these electoral contests are usually dominated by political parties that select their
own candidates and leaders. What has not changed, however, in our modern liberal-democratic
society is the principle that government must rest on the consent of the governed: which means
that the minority accepts the right of the majority to make decisions, provided that there is
reciprocal respect for the minority’s right to dissent from these decisions and to promote alternative
policies.

24
Conclusion
Party politics in Nigeria, right from the return of democracy in 1999 to 2015, has been
bedeviled by rampant conflicts with debilitating effects in its democratic consolidation. Inter-party
relations have also retrogressed to autocracy partly due to perceived elimination of competitors
through state sponsored assassinations, incumbency factor, thereby turning election contests as a
matter of life and death. The consequences have produced fierce political struggle and violence
which have continued to pose serious challenges to Nigeria’s democratic survival and its
consolidation.
Party politics encourage regional political leadership, religious divides, lack of clear cut
party ideologies, party indiscipline and intolerance, among others. Also, lacks of mutual inter-
party democracy encourages a politics of irrationality and intolerance, which abhors maturity of
debate, negotiations, dialogue, and mutual compromises based on win-win scenario. These factors,
no doubt, persistently threatened current survival of Nigeria’s emerging democracy which must be
addressed.
Opposition must not be for opposition sake, and it must be devoid of violence and must be
within the globally accepted standard or best practice. The people in government are not angels;
they are human and, indeed, Nigerians. They are liable to make mistakes, and in the same way as
the party in opposition. The only duty an opposition party need’s is to provide an alternative view,
and this must be properly dissected, articulated and effectively communicated to the general
public.
Recommendations
For and effective opposition politics, under the present dispensation in Nigeria the paper
recommends the followings:
i. The ruling APC should ensure that it provides a level playing ground that it enjoyed to be
able to capture power from the then ruling PDP. It should make provision other opposition
political parties to have a chance of capturing power too in future as options for voters
when the need arises.
ii. The ruling APC should, as a matter of fact, stop the intimidation of the major opposition
political party, the P.D.P by sending EFCC to arrest and detain them.
iii. The opposition PDP should learn a good lesson from the ruling APC and organize itself to
give the APC a formidable challenge in future elections so as to avoid institutionalization
of the one party system which will be detrimental to democratic rule;
iv. Other powerful opposition parties need to organize themselves and form a strong alliance
like that of APC in order to have a better chance of challenging the ruling party in the
future; and,
v. The measures that were put in place during the 2015 General Elections such as the use of
the electronic card reader and prevention of rigging should be consolidated and improved
upon in future elections. It should be enacted into the electoral law for future elections.

25
Reference
Agbaje, A. and Adejumobi, S. (2006). “Do Votes Count? The Travails of Electoral Politics in Nigeria” in
Africa Development, Vol XXXI, No 3, CODESRIA.
Agbaje, A. Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Elements of Politics, edited by A. Remi and F.
Enemuo, 122-129. Lagos: Sam Iroanusi Publishers,2008.
Aina, A.D. (2002). ‟Party Politics in Nigeria under Obasanjo Administration, ‟ Monograph Series No. 1,
Department of Political Science and Sociology, Babcock University, Nigeria.
Alabi, (2009). Party Internal Democracy and the Challenge of Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria, 1999-
2011.
Awolowo, O. (1966). Thoughts on Nigeria Constitution, Oxford, London
Bello, D. (2000). The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties (2nded.).
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, pg. 393
Diefenbaker, J. G. (1949). "The Role of the Opposition in Parliament," Address to the EmpireClub of
Canada, Toronto, 27 October 1949.
Domingo, P. and Nwankwo, C. (2010). Review of International Assistance to Political Party and Party
System Development, Case Study Report: Nigeria, An Overseas Development Institute Publication,
December 2010
Egwemi, V. (2009). From Three to Fifty: Some Comments on the Paradox of Increasing Number and
Diminishing Relevance of Political Parties Under Obasanjo‟s Administration, 1999 – 2007,
International Journal of Social Science ,1 (2), 33 – 40.
Mmegi, (2009). Opposition Parties and the Urban Poor in African Democracies
Nwagwu, E. J. (2016). “Political Party Financing and Consolidation of Democracy in Nigeria 1999-2015.”
International Journal of Political Science, 10: 243-267
Omodia, S.M. (2010). Elite Recruitment and Political Stability in the Nigerian Fourth Republic‟, Journal
of Social Sciences, 24(2):129-133.
Omotola, J. S. (2009). Electoral Administration and Democratic Consolidation in Africa: Ghana and
Nigeria in Comparative Perspective, PhD Post-Field Seminar Department of Political Science,
University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Omotola, S.J. (2009). Nigerian Parties and Political Ideology, Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the
Social Sciences (2009) Vol 1, No 3, 612-634.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1961). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London: Harper.
Sklar, R. L., Ebere, O. and Darren. K. (2006). “Nigeria: Completing Obasanjo‟s Legacy” Journal of
Democracy Volume 17, Number 3 July 2006. USAID (2006) Democracy and Governance
Assessment of Nigeria, Available at:http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADI079.pdf.
Waluchow, W. (2007). Constitutionalism. Standford Encyclopedea of Philosophy, available @
http://www.plato.standford.eduRetreived 14/07/2011

The Role of Political Parties in Democratic Consolidation: Nigeria’s Fourth Republic.
26
1Edoghogho Omoregie and 2John Anani A. Anathekhai
1
Department of Political Science, Ambrose Alli University (AAU) Ekpoma, Edo State.
2
Department of Policy and Development Studies, Ambrose Alli University (AAU) Ekpoma, Edo
State. Email: omoregieedos@yahoo.com dr.anetekhaijohn2525@gmail.com
Abstract
Nigeria once again keyed into what most scholars termed as the third wave of democratic experience
which it christened, the Fourth Republic in 1999. This came with the emergence of political parties,
which were initially three registered, but with time these have increased. In spite of these increases
and level of political awareness in the system, they are observed not to be effectively assuming its
roles in engendering democratic consolidation. Political parties and democracy in any setting,
assumes an axiomatic relationship. To this end political parties and democracy are supposed as same
coin of different sides in a relationship. But in the Nigeria Fourth Republic it is saddening that
political parties does little or nothing in deepening or consolidating democracy. This paper,
therefore, seeks for those roles of political parties in deepening democracy in the system and how
the political parties in Nigeria’s fourth republic will key into these roles. Particular focus was placed
on those factors that can be used to consolidate democracy, these include ideology, participation,
legitimacy and integration. In achieving this, the secondary source of data collection, which involves
the usage of books, journal, periodicals, and newspapers among others was highly depended on
while the structural functionalist theory was deployed as the theoretical framework. In conclusion,
this paper recommends various ways political parties through its roles can effectively contribute to
democratic consolidation in Nigeria’s fourth Republic, especially through tackling the crises
emanating from participation, integration, legitimacy, among others.
Keywords: Democracy, Ideology, Integration, Legitimacy Participation and Political Parties.
Introduction
Political parties in the contemporary world are viewed as inseparable institution of
democracy; this is anchored on the belief that parties have become an inevitable institution in every
era of democratic politics. To put it more authoritatively, some scholars of political science like
Schattschneider (1942) argued that political parties created democracy and that democracy is
unthinkable without given a prominent place to political parties. The implication of this statement,
therefore, is that political parties assume the centrality of achieving a consolidated democracy in a
system. Policy makers and scholars charged with fostering the development of emerging
democracies or empowering the qualities of those already established are of the strong opinion that
political parties played a pivotal role in all democracies in the world. This is why it can be assumed
that, relationship between a viable and well-structured political party and democracy can be said
to be axiomatic.

27
There is this assumption that, the role of deepening democracy in the system lies majorly
with political parties, owing to the fact that they are endowed with the ability to unify the diverse
social spectrum in the system. Some of the conventional role of political parties includes that, it is
a medium where citizens participate in government, it is the means through which bridges are built
between the government and the governed, political parties provides the vehicle for recruitment of
leaders in the system, they educate the citizenry politically, parties can also be channels through
which interest articulation and aggregation takes place, the actions of political parties also can give
the necessary political stability to the democratic system among others. For political parties to be
able to effectively manage those aforementioned functions, efforts must be made to expand and
consolidate the democratic space, it is also paramount that parties must in addition possess some
characteristics like, having registered members or supporters, it must have well-articulated
programs or manifestoes, the aims and objectives of the party must be well stated, the party must
have high degree of resourcefulness in terms of sourcing for funds, seeking for talents and
nomination of credible candidates for elections and ensuring national spread, parties must have
written rules which spells out the do’s and don’ts, it is also pertinent that parties must have clear
cut philosophy or vision for the country, this vision or mission represents the party ideology,
parties must have a leadership structure and succession pattern to avoid internal crisis but if crisis
is inevitable, parties must put in place an acceptable or well-structured internal crisis management
mechanism.
Parties with the aforementioned characteristics are believed to be able to effectively
deplore its energy towards performing the roles earlier stated and if those roles are well performed,
then the democratic system will be able to solve the crisis of legitimacy, the crisis of integration
and the crisis of participation which are basic elements for democratic consolidation in any
political system. Deriving from the above analysis, this essay among others seeks for those roles
of political parties which aimed at deepening democracy. It also wishes to assess how well Nigeria
fourth republic political parties have keyed into these roles, in achieving the desired goal.
Nigerian’s journey to the fourth republic commenced in 1998 when a transition to civil rule
program was initiated by the military regime of Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar. The army general
assumed the helm of affairs as leader in Nigeria after the death of Gen. Sani Abacha who was
alleged to have died mysteriously. The charged domestic and external pressure for democratization
gave rise to the transition of a multi-party democracy. The act ushered Nigeria in what some
scholars of Political Science referred to as the third wave of democratic experience. A queue was
taken from happenings in Latin America, Asia and other African countries since the last decades
of the twentieth century. Consequently, the arrangement was made to service the recent democracy
through a regulatory framework put in place to usher in political parties, to play a major role in the
democratization process, drawing references from the relevant sections of the Nigerian
constitution, particularly section 221-229 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria as amended (cited in Mohammed, 2007, p. 12).
The condition at the earlier stage of parties’ registration was stringent; as a result, only
three political parties scaled through registration by the country’s electoral management body, the
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Though, the electoral act was later amended
making it possible for political parties come on stream, more political parties are continuously
being registered, bringing the total number to over ninety (90) before the 2019 general elections.
Though the number of political parties has continually increased, but the worries are; do these

28
parties structures possesses ideology. Clear-cut manifestoes, succession pattern, devoid of rancour
and acrimony among others to perform the much needed roles of consolidating and stabilizing
democracy in Nigeria? Do these parties possess the capacity of resolving those common crises that
emanate from democracy? For instance, how prepared are they to engage the crises of integration,
participation and legitimacy in the system, these are the pivotal issues to be looked into in the
course of this paper.
The concept of Political Parties
A political party has been defined by Marx Weber cited in Nekabari (2004, p. 213) as a
voluntary society of propaganda and agitation, seeking to acquire power in order to procure
chances for its active militant and adherent to realize objective, which are public, personal or both.
This conceptualization sees a political party as firstly, an association of people that are organized
for a goal which is to contest elections with the aim of winning and subsequently controlling the
machinery of government in a given system. Collaborating with this assertion, Coleman and
Rosbery cited in Dowse and Hughes (1972, p. 173) defines a political party as thus:
Political parties are association formally organized with explicit and
declared the purpose of acquiring and /or maintaining legal control
either single or in coalition or electoral competition with other similar
association over personal and policy of the government of an actual
perspective or sovereign state.
In reference to the assertion that a political party by its nature seeks the goal of power
acquisition through the context of elections, no doubt the basic elements for acquiring this goal is
much on the ability of the political party to organize itself and ensure that members and supporters
of the party are reconciled in terms of ideological stand. This element is well captured in Hughes
and Harrop (2001) who argued that a political party is a permanent organization made of people
with ideas, principally concerned with contesting elections, with the hope of winning and
occupying the position of authority within the state. Appadorai (2004) emphasized the need for
individuals that are members of a political party to hold similar political opinions and work
together if they actually seek to win elections and get control of the government.
The concept of Democracy/Democratic Consolidation
The concept of democracy can be said to have floods of definitions because individual and
political leaders like associating with the usage of the word. Christensen, Engel, Jacobs, Rejal and
Waltzer (1975) observed that even the Nazis Germany under Adolf Hitler claimed that its
government was practicing a form of democracy. He referred to as a “centralized Democracy”
Mao Tse-Tung of China and Nasser of Egypt both claimed to be practicing another form of
democracy they referred to as “party less Democracies” Sekou Toure of Guinea branded his
leadership style as “Democratic dictatorship” Ayubkluan of Pakistan and Fidel Castro of Cuba
claimed that their governments were another form of democracy which they christened as “Basic
Democracy” and “True Democracy” respectively. However, there are basic elements which must
be observed or present in a system before such can be termed as democracy. These are part the
indices present in Hoffman and Graham (2009) these authors acknowledged the confusion inherent
in the effort of trying to give an acceptable meaning to the concept. Hence they argued that

29
democracy entails where the people or citizens directly or indirectly consent to and are major
participant in their government. The implication of this conceptualization focuses on the people
and by extension, the electorate as the principal factor that possesses the ultimate power in a
democracy. In addition, the system of democracy is a self-determination concept; this is well
captured in Baber and Watson (1988) who opined that Democracy is a charming form of
government. They anchored their belief on the fact that it has the ability to improve the equality of
the system and government through citizen’s participation, which is part of the norms inherent in
democratic settings. Jega (2007) argued that democracy must be deeply rooted in participation
and/or representation and that government in democratic systems derives its power and legitimacy
from the people. In this sense government exercises authority within the framework of bodies of
supreme law called constitution and the right of the citizens to vote and be voted for in the system.
Democratic consolidation is a situation where democratic values which involve
participation are deepened in a system. Linz and Stepan (1996) defined it as a situation where
democracy has become the only game in town. That is a situation where democracy makes the
government more responsive to the demands or the yearning of the people, where the people
beyond periodic elections exercise their right to vote, but use their civic and political right, and
where all groups in the system participate equally in the political system. Ojo (2006) argued that,
consolidating democracy entails a process where democracy becomes so broadly and profoundly
legitimate among the citizens, to the extent that it is unlikely to break down. This definition
explains a process whereby new democracies mature and old ones stabilized in a way that, it is
unlikely to revert to authoritarianism. The regime in a consolidated democracy meets all required
procedures and criteria’s of democracy, these bothers on enhancing both contestation and
participation. Also, it entails a system where all politically significant groups accept established
political institutions and adhere strictly to the democratic rules of the game. That is, for democracy
to stabilize in a system, it must persist over time and democratic culture must be deepened,
especially in the area of participation, contestation among others. Consolidating democracy can be
interpreted as effort to secure and extend the life span of democracies, beyond the short term,
thereby making them immune against the threats of authoritarianism and regression. The rules of
the game serve as the dams against eventual waves to the original mission of rendering democracy,
the only game in town.
Theoretical framework
The structural functionalist theory is deployed for this paper, as it is believed that, this
perspective would better capture and explain the variables under study as well as state their
relationship. The structural functionalist theory is a broad based perspective, which has its
foundation in sociology and anthropology. It has a lot of prominent proponents such as Spencer,
Parson, Moor, Milton, Almond and Powell etc. The functionalist set out to interpret society as a
structure with interrelated parts, the society is viewed as a whole in terms of functions, and it has
as part of its constituent elements, like norms, culture, traditions and institutions. According to
Varma (2007), the theory was borrowed from Sociology and Anthropology and became popular
in political science since the 1950s. Part of the assumptions of this theory is that, roles are bound
up in institutions and social structures, which are functional to the extent to which they assist
society in operating and fulfilling its functional goals or needs, this engenders the society to
function smoothly. The understanding of the structural functionalist theory emphasis the society
and political system as a whole, which are made up of sub-units or sub-systems with

Jjsms vol.1. no. 4.

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jjsms vol.1. no. 4.

Similar to Jjsms vol.1. no. 4. (20)

More from TSUOER

More from TSUOER (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jjsms vol.1. no. 4.