Nigeria’s democracy is again at the crossroads. The lack of transparency in funding nigeria’s 18 registered political parties has raised critical questions on how the parties are funded and the level of influence, implications, and consequences of these financial backers on the country’s democratic process, particularly when examining the local government polls so far conducted across various states. In a democratic system, the presence of 18 political parties is supposed to portend good tidings. But is that the case with nigerians?
The question again is, how are the parties sustaining themselves? Is it through transparent means such as membership dues, donations, and, in some cases, legitimate business ventures? The harsh reality is most political parties lack substantial membership bases, making it difficult for them to generate meaningful income from dues. If these parties do have extensive membership records, it is high time they prove it by making such information available to nigerians. Transparency on this front is sorely lacking, and the parties owe it to the public to clarify where their funds come from.
The cost of running a political party at the national, state, and local government levels, and contesting elections at whatever level in nigeria is expensive. It includes maintaining local secretariats, rent, utilities, maintenance, paying allowances to party executives, staff remuneration, benefits, purchase of stationery, printing, branding, and promotional materials. It also entails managing election campaigns such as advertising, events, nomination forms, travelling, fuelling, hotel accommodation, mobilization of supporters, and other logistics, etc.
Political parties in nigeria are meant to be funded by a combination of membership dues, donations, and other legitimate sources according to their constitution. However, what is opaque and remains contentious is the possibility and the extent of subvention receipts from the state. The current state of party funding in nigeria according to the 1999 nigeria constitution and the 2022 electoral act can be found in section 15, part 1 of the third schedule of the 1999 constitution (as amended) and section 2 of the electoral act 2010 (as amended). It can also be gleaned in the code of conduct for political parties. These laws and binding agreements aim to ensure transparency and accountability in party financing. However, the lack of cooperation and coordination among parties, particularly at all levels, undermines democratic principles.
Now let’s take a critical look at the funding structure. Donations are a key source of funding, but parties without any seats, elected representatives, or clout cannot possibly attract significant donations or patronage. So, the question of funding becomes even more puzzling here. After all, why would anyone donate to a party that lacks influence or a voice in decision-making processes? Yet, some of these fringe parties remain afloat, raising suspicions about their true sources of funding. If these smaller parties claim to be receiving donations, they should openly declare their benefactors. The nigerian people deserve to know who is bankrolling these entities. If the parties cannot provide transparency on this issue, they become complicit in perpetuating a system of opacity, and deceit, and are part of the broader systemic scam that is being perpetrated against nigeria and its citizens.
Still, fundamental questions remain: how are these parties surviving? Do they have business ventures generating income? If so, where are these businesses, and how successful are they? If parties claim to have such ventures, they should provide the details for public scrutiny. The truth, however, is that most parties do not engage in any profitable ventures that could sustain their operations. This lack of transparency fuels speculation that many political parties may be receiving funds from questionable sources.
The so-called big parties have bigger questions to answer. That is, those with presidents, governors, senators, and members of the house of representatives, etc, are not immune from scrutiny. Can these parties truly claim that membership dues are keeping them afloat? The reality is that they, too, likely rely on more opaque means to fund their activities. It would be reasonable to suggest that these big parties may be siphoning public funds, whether from state or federal coffers, to maintain their operations.
For instance, when a party controls the presidency, the governorship, or holds a majority in the legislature, the lines between party and state resources often blur as they tend to call the president or the governor the leader of the party at those levels. Therefore, without transparent accounting, it is safe to assume that public funds could be diverted to support the political machinery. These resources, which should be allocated to development projects or public welfare, might be funnelled into campaigns and party expenses instead.
What is ipac’s role in all these? The 18 political parties are signatories to the code of conduct for political parties, which outlines ethical practices for campaigns and elections. Yet, many parties fail to uphold these standards, often colluding with state governments to undermine the democratic process.
Unfortunately, the inter-party advisory council that saddled itself with protecting the interest of parties, and promoting unity, and cooperation among parties has failed in that regard. The actions or inactions of ipac at different levels often show support or tacitly condone electoral irregularities thus failing to uphold the code of conduct. Ipac’s inertia is also evident, instead of raising concerns over constitutional violations and electoral travesties, the council remains largely passive, allowing state governments to continue subverting democracy at the grassroots level, as it fails to speak out against the injustices its members face, leaving smaller parties vulnerable and powerless thus resulting in situations where parties are not only excluded from elections, but are also discouraged from challenging electoral outcomes through legal means.
A glaring example of these accusations is the travesty of local government elections where manipulation is the order of the day, as we see states being notorious for imposing their preferred candidates on the electorate. These travesties are made possible by state electoral laws which often contravene national guidelines, and are at variance with the 1999 nigerian constitution and the 2022 electoral act, effectively undermining the credibility of elections. The state independent electoral commissions, created to oversee these elections, are mere tools in the hands of governments, allowing incumbents to remain in control by any means possible.
So, are we in a democracy or deception mode? How can nigerians claim to live in a democracy when opposition parties are complicit in deceiving the electorate? It is not just the ruling parties that are guilty; the so-called opposition parties often appear to be working hand in glove with those in power, perpetuating a system designed to enrich the political elite at the expense of the nigerian people. If political parties cannot sustain themselves transparently, through legitimate means such as dues, donations, or business ventures, they may be fronts for siphoning public funds.
This lack of transparency undermines the very fabric of nigeria’s democracy. Nigerians deserve to know who is funding these parties. Is it the people, or is it a few powerful individuals with vested interests? If parties cannot prove that they are being funded through lawful means, they are not only deceiving nigerians but also perpetuating the corruption that has long plagued the country’s political landscape, and effectively do not have business on the political turf.
