WHEN the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, argues that it is the biggest and most democratic party in Nigeria, that is not easily identifiable with any ethnic group in Nigeria, very few people can argue against that fact.

In reality that may be its greatest strength in general elections in Nigeria, and that fact easily marginalises people who will like to factionalise the PDP as a regional entity.

To demonstrate the latter claim, when a group within the party tried to project the PDP as an entity that fields regional candidates, the full strength of the party rose against this worldview in front of the global audience, as the party unanimously, and transparently picked its presidential candidate for the 2011 election by upholding national unity against regional posturing and most of its members regrouped as one to pursue the general elections.

Yet, while this camaraderie may be the picture the PDP will like to maintain, not all of its members subscribe to this worldview.

In respect of, and with democratic difference to the provision of the Nigerian constitution, the party respected the right of the President to run for election having ascended to the office in the light of the demise of the incumbent president; formally, the members endorsed this position in the succeeding primary elections. Even if this position had partisan differences in the party, the Nigerian public went ahead to seal the party position by the public votes in the April 2011 general elections.

As a party the PDP has only used bandages to gloss over the polarizing and adversarial contentions which preceded and succeeded the issues surrounding the constitutional uncertainties which confronted it before the 2011 general elections. It would have been asking the party for too much to go for a constitutional review just before an election. Thus faced with uncertainties, it followed the prescriptions of administrative management of crises, namely, the act of bounded rationality decision-making, when information, time and political pressure do not allow for rational decisions, the options were to use minimalism, incremental measures or muddling-through decisions, which is the everyday reality of political decisions in groups.

In the process, the party cooperated with those who were committed to its decision, collaborated with those who were willing to go along, and co-opted a few who still had reservations; on the sideline remained a silent and unremitting dissident group, their silence was louder than their vocal resistance, and when the party won despite their hopes that it may not, they still did not embrace victory with party loyalty.

The preceding political mosaic emboldened people outside the PDP to pick sides. Dissident groups who have never really been happy with the success of PDP are wont to capitalise on the differences, the contradictions between the PDP guidelines and the Nigerian constitution remains the focal point, which all such outside groups will continue to feed on, and not addressing that issue, remains a polarizing node of discord upon which such outside forces can prey upon, and as the party in power such an important issue which remains unaddressed is fodder for those who foment conflict. From a national security point of view, to leave such matter unattended will be naïve.

There are two ways to look at  the multiple factors which can undermine national security, a reductive way in which isolated and individual issues can be taken with their causal potentials, then there is the holistic approach in which all the different factors  can be put together holistically in a relational and correlational view, the holistic view, takes the point that along with many other problems which fuel the Boko Haram issue, such as the contiguous nature of Nigeria with several borders that are proximal to the activities of the insurgencies of the fundamentalists in the Marghreb,  local social factors in the North East, the polarizing nature of the political discourse in the ruling party with the resources at the disposal of its members as office holders, public opinion leaders and community leaders cannot be ruled out, as long as it remains unaddressed with reference to the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.

From this view, there is great wisdom in the statement of the National Security Adviser that the party position which has not been synchronized with the Nigerian Constitution formally is a security issue.

For those interested in the development of nations, there are two major names which are currently taken very seriously regarding governance reforms to advance development in a country: Merilee Grindle of the Kennedy School of Government in Harvard and Derick W. Brinkerhoff, Senior Fellow in International Public Management. Grindle advises that good governance, especially in developing nations is not easy to accomplish with the long list of normative requirements that is used as a score-card, and that countries should strive for ‘good enough governance’  which addresses priorities, on the way to good-governance which addresses all the desirables.

Brinkerhoff, on the other hand, points to the importance of three key governance functions which a country, especially under conflict should address, namely: assuring security, delivering basic public sector services efficiently and effectively, and generating legitimacy.

Since governance has been defined broadly as the ‘traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised’, how can good governance be accomplished to assure security if the core node of difference between the major actors in these institutions in Nigeria, such as the PDP, remains unaddressed. The PDP as a party must see the wisdom in the holistic view of General Azazi and address this core issue consensually or it may continue to play possum and blame the messenger instead of the addressing the message. The PDP may not be the cause of the Boko Haram terrorism, but its internal discourse may harbor Boko Haram recruits which is a fact that the President has pointed out previously.

For this reason, the question the PDP needs to address is: to what extent has it addressed the uncertainty between its constitution and the Nigerian Constitution regarding what happens when an incumbent leaves an executive office under uncertainty or unexpected circumstances? What are the consequences for its policy on zoning regarding such issue? If left unaddressed, does this not leave room for nationalist agitations and conflicts? The wisdom in such an observation can hardly be faulted!

Mr. ANTHONY MUDIAGA, a medical practitioner,  wrote from Lagos.