CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
There is no universal definition of the concept of intraparty democracy (internal party democracy), although many scholars agreed on some basic principles of electricity, accountability, transparency, inclusivity, participation, and representation.( Jeroen 2011) “Internal party democracy means that the party’s should be formed “bottom-up” and that the internal distribution of power should be marked by dispersion at different levels, bodies and individuals rather than by the concentration in one organ”.Cular(2004) Unlike most definitions of democracy at the level of political system, the definition of internal party democracy does not mean a state that can be distinguished from other forms of internal party order. It is rather about the scale by which we can measure the extent to which a party is democratically organized and eventually compare among other parties.
According to Salih (2006) internal party democracy “Implies support for the general interest of the party membership, the public and the state. It means that party structure and organisation are participatory and inclusive, essentially vehicles for the exercise of nascent democratic leadership and values”. There are two identified essential instrumental elements of intra-party democracy. The first group involves the organisation of free, fair and regular elections of internal positions as well as candidates for the representative bodies. While the second group involves equal and open participation of entire members and members’ group in such a way that interest are more or less equally represented. It is imperative to analyze actual practice by political parties in order to determine whether they adhere to the practice of internal democracy. Three levels of observations are determinable for the purposes of this analysis. These are legal requirements, party regulations, and actual practice. In Nigeria, these analyses will be carried out with reference to the Electoral Act 2010, (as amended), the Constitutions of the political parties and the actual conducts of the political parties during their various parties primaries conducted prior to the April 2011 general elections.
Political parties are one of the institutions that are carriers of democratic principles in any organised society. Thus, there are a number of ‘institutional guarantees’ that parties have to fulfil if they were to effectively meet what is expected of them in a democracy. One of such institutional requirements is internal (intra-party) democracy. As Magolowondo (n.d) points out, this very important institutional dimension is lacking in many political parties, particularly in emerging democracies. But the question is, what is Internal Democracy? Drawing on Scarrow (2004) study on ‘Political Parties and Democracy in theoretical and practical perspectives; Implementing intra-party democracy’, internal democracy is a very broad term describing a wide range of methods for including party members in intra-party deliberation and decisionmaking. It is democracy within the party and the extent to which a party subscribes to and abides by the basic and universal democratic tenets.
As Tyoden (1994) argues, hardly is a political system adjudged democratic without the central placement of political parties in its political process. This is because political parties are the major vehicles for the expression of an essential feature of the democratic process. In this case, however, inter and intra party relationships are vital because they determine the health and resilience of the party system and by extension the fate of democracy and the nature of the political system itself. In similar vein, Mersel (2006) asserts that various democracies in recent times have faced the problem of nondemocratic political parties, a situation where most parties only focus on external activities, neglecting internal planning and organisation. He argues that in determining whether a political party is nondemocratic, attention should be given to party’s goals and practices. This is so because some parties often ignore essential elements such as their internal structures.