By John Amoda

THE answer cannot be that the order of electoral governance is now institutionalized because it has not been aborted by military rule. Political parties in Nigeria are the civilian structure for electoral governance and the first act of the military in government is the abolition of the constitution, the political parties and the sack of the legislatures at the three levels of government.

That this democracy has not yet been truncated by coups does not imply that the subordination of the military to the political parties has been achieved and constitutionalised.Thus, one perspective for appreciating the future of party electoral governance in Nigeria is addressing the political parties efforts to effect the subordination of the military and security forces to their command and control.

Thus phrased, inquiries into the future of political parties and democracy in Nigeria are operationally inquire into aspects of the investments of political parties in state formation politics. Is there any party, therefore, in the pantheon of Nigerian political parties that has as its fundamental democracy-statecraft the subordination of the military to its command and control?

On July 31, 2010, Vanguard on Saturday carried on its front page the statement of a General of the Nigerian Army that puts our comments in the Nigerian context of the contestation for power between the Nigerian military and Nigeria’s private sector political parties. His statement was an explanation of “why we haven’t aborted this democracy”.

For the historically-minded, the story can be found on Page 7 of the July 31, 2010 Vanguard.

The statement was intimadatory and its subtext was a threat because of the explicit statement of a purported capacity of the Army do what it has refrained from doing.

Clearly implied in the General’s assertion is that the Army can, when it is so decides, abort this “democracy”. The statement when reduced to its logic implies that “this democracy” exists at the pleasure and the sufferance of the Armed Forces. From the logic of the General’s statement, the following inferences can be deduced, namely:

*    That this Army is yet politically autonomous not being subordinated to the control of the electoral political parties, whether acting singularly or in concert;

*    That this Army is not yet the military wing or arm of “this Democracy”;

*    That “this democracy” is yet an unsecured democracy;

*    That this democracy is not yet a republican or people’s democracy, irrespective of the constitutional provision for such a democracy;

*    That this Army exists politically uncontrolled by a constitutionalist republican officer corps, as is the case with the Attaturk Turkish army and state;

*    That the elected politicians are operating a system of politics that is unsecured by the people republicanly mobilized for the establishment of a democratic republican constitutionalist Nigerian state and government.

It would therefore appear that one of the challenges to be addressed in any attempt to evaluate the future of electoral party democracy in Nigeria must be that entailed in creating a democratic republican Nigerian political party or coalition of such parties.

The history of military rule in Nigeria compels such an approach. Without such a context being provided, any medium term assessment of the future of political parties and democracy in Nigeria will be largely subjective and idealistic. In the sequel to this piece, we will address prospects of the electoral governance as envisaged by Nigerian political parties and attempt an evaluation of the viability and sustainability of their effort, even under the condition of Armed Forces support for electoral democracy in Nigeria.