By Ugoji Egbujo
When two elephants fight, the grass , they say , suffers. And many ordinary Nigerians , downtrodden and dispossessed, may thus be rightly apprehensive of not just the menace posed by the attitude of the elephants we have in the PDP and the APC but by the enormity of the storm that the contest between them would generate. However, a deeper look at the unfolding political events in Nigeria may call for celebration.

Political rivalries, if well regulated, are as beneficial as controlled competition in the market place . Monopoly whether in economics or politics breeds indolence, oppression and tyranny . In all cases , the consumers are invariably exploited. The fiercer and more evenly matched the competition, the better the interests of the consumers or the citizenry are served. And it doesn’t matter that the companies or parties are similar or have similar products and ideas.

Women sit in a branded bus station as they support leading opposition All Progressives Congress presidential candidate Mohammadu Buhari during a rally christened ‘Walk for Change” in Lagos, on March 7, 2015 in Lagos, Nigeria’s commercial capital. Presidential elections scheduled for February 14 were delayed for six weeks as the military said the ongoing counter-offensive against Islamists Boko Haram meant that troops could not provide security on polling day. Elections will take place on March 28, with gubernatorial and state house assembly polls two weeks later. AFP PHOTO

And it doesn’t even matter that they are propelled solely by selfish interests. The effect of regulated competition is decidedly better performance and efficiency, better research and development and better appreciation of patronage. The consumers , just like the electorate, become truly kings or valued king makers.

PDP and APC may be essentially identical. Nigeria will benefit from the death of the monopoly that PDP’s dominance constituted.

Politics , they say, is dirty and it’s a whole lot messier in a polity that has suffered moral degeneration , where ends alone justify means. Since political rivalry may entail unwholesome brinksmanship and sharp practices., intense political rivalry in a poor regulated chaotic environment could be a recipe for unmitigated disaster. Many observers therefore view the vigorous competition between APC and PDP as unhealthy and potentially debilitating for a troubled nation. Little wonder some have suggested an interim government of national unity .

However, a comparison between the multiparty democratic environment and the adversarial nature of trials prevalent in the common law jurisdictions may offer a profitable elucidation . The Judge and the society, in those court trials, seek the truth indirectly through the mediation of proofs and evidences tendered by opposing counsels. So the often attritional legal skirmishes between counsels serve a moral societal function in justice administration. The stronger and more evenly matched the counsels, the more vigorous their engagement and the better the interest of justice in the society is served.

When the opposition party is as well founded and as well oiled as the ruling party the resultant robust competition is beneficial to the people. It is true that a few one party states and even military dictatorships have managed to improve their people economically but dictatorships always breed tyranny and oppression and what is prosperity without freedom. Without freedom there is no true development. An effective opposition almost always constitutes a better check against tyranny than any other institution . And the role of the other arms of government in checking the executive lawlessness and in enhancing public accountability is positively and tremendously impacted by the existence of a virile and vigilant opposition

Consider that Obasanjo toyed with the idea of tenure elongation and self perpetuation. He was only stopped by the internal dissent within his party. We needn’t run such risks. With a firm opposition , like the APC, such a design would have been inconceivable and such a thought would never have sprouted in him or in anyone else. And the nation would have been saved the troubles of the manipulations and perfidies that were employed to push through the devious plan.

The bane of African nations has never really been just poor economic management . No. Africans have always managed to find outstanding experts to manage their economies .

But many African nations have always lacked effective political opposition offered by an alternative electable party to check excesses, establish processes and enhance political and financial accountability. Some observers have failed to take this into consideration and questioned the utility of democracy in Africa.

‘Democracy ‘ has failed many African nations not because Africans have a peculiar political temperament that demands rule by ‘strongmen’ as some have hypothesized. Democracy may have failed because African states ,except a few, have never really practiced democracy. The concept was mistaken for any sort of civilian rule .

Democracy means more than just civilian rule . Because of our long history of military dictatorships , any social contraption headed by civilians brought in by rituals that could hardly be described as elections were accepted as democracies . And democracy in many African nations was reduced to one party rule where the presidents had life terms and opposition was squelched and suffocated into extinction . And charges of sedition and treason became tools of oppression and patriots became dissidents and lived in exile.

And these presidents owned the parties and the parties owned the people. The president became father or god and the people became subjects and slaves. Eyadema and Houphet Boigny were all democrats.

African democrats of the one party variety , political wolves in democratic sheep clothing, appropriate the mandate of people, mangle the constitution and turn laws into cudgels and make their private interests national interests. They turn their nations into communal prisons.

One party rule is worse than military dictatorship and Nigeria must run away from both. The opposition before now was largely constituted by the AD/AC and the internal dissenters in the PDP. Such an opposition always lacked the size and shape to be effective and never constituted the watchman or electoral alternative that a democratic opposition should be. And the nation suffered.

The sort of opposition that APC is posing now would help the building of political institutions and capacities . Because under a political monopoly many democratic institutions become so subservient to the only existing party that they literally become comatose.

The concept of neutrality is lost and the interest of the ruling party becomes synonymous with national interest and tyranny is fostered. Effective political opposition engenders and fosters an equilibrium that allows institutions like the DSS, Police , Military, civil service to gradually mature into apolitical, efficient and enduring supportive democratic structures.

And in being unshackled and in knowing that political masters will come and go, they will develop their capacities and align their loyalties with the people and the constitution.

Many have suggested that the APC is not an alternative because for them an alternative must in a sense be different from what exists, the ruling party. A formidable and viable alternative that is refreshingly different , that represents a clean break from the status quo, would have to be the product of a major revolution.

Such a revolution would alter the political milieu , dismantle existing structures and allow a distinctively different set of actors to sprout and thrive. But under the prevailing structures only such actors who have acquired the dexterity and astuteness and flexibility for success in these murky settings can thrive. A group of saints cannot win national elections in the present day Nigeria under the existing political culture. The complexity of our political situation makes an expectation of a formidable opposition peopled by saints utterly simplistic. The APC is a definitive alternative , the only kind of viable alternative we can realistically expect now.

The APC and PDP have often been described as assemblages of political contractors whose primary interest is to grab power, dispossess the masses and attend to the greed and egos of party men and their cronies. And I would argue that the coming of APC is nonetheless a blessing. It serves the nation better that these characters are in two opposing groups than that they were ganged up in one. APC will remain a choice even if choosing is between miserable options.

And any new moral choice enhances freedom , both negative and positive freedoms. It reduces , in the aggregate, the likelihood of a tyrannical emergence and retards any existing tyrannical progression. And in being an outlet for aggrieved persons to seek their ambitions elsewhere , it enhances personal autonomy and therefore furthers positive freedom. Imagine what Rotimi Amaechi’s political career would have come to without the APC. The option of viable alternatives would ultimately help to improve internal democratic practices and consensus building within both parties.

More importantly, the existence of competition , even if the groups are bereft of ideology at the outset, would lead to further internal cultural differentiation as the parties evolve to improve their electability . So the parties may stand for nothing now but would have to think up programmes and synthesize ideologies soon if they are to survive competition.

It is imperative at this stage that the opposition becomes entrenched. If they fail disastrously at the polls we may relapse into a one party scenario. Many who hope for an APC victory understand that the safest guarantee of longevity of the new party is victory at the presidential polls. I will submit that the nation stands to benefit more at this stage of her political development from the victory of the APC than the continuation of PDP in power. This argument does not rest on the APC being better than the PDP or on Jonathans poor performance. The only assumption I make is that both parties are in nearly all respects alike

An APC victory guarantees that we will have two strong national parties after May 2015. And that in a sense will mark the true beginning of our democracy or perhaps a watershed. It would be epochal not just because we would have succeeded in transferring power from an incumbent to an opposition but because we would have an effective , entrenched opposition formed by the versatile PDP.

PDP in being firmly rooted will certainly survive any further decampment and mount formidable opposition. The PDP in opposition will experience a rebirth and will serve national interests better. The chords that bind the APC may be too tenuous to survive a major electoral defeat.

APC may have other desirable attributes . I prefer to avoid controversies.

Nigeria cannot afford one party dictatorship , it needs a second national party and needs it entrenched. An APC victory will serve these ends