Explaining The Two-Party System By Anthony Akinola

Professor Attahiru Jega, Chairman of
the Independent National Electoral
Commission and erstwhile professor of
comparative politics, was spot on when
he said recently that a two-party
system only evolves, it cannot be
imposed. In a society where everyone
is a political scientist, not least
because they have read newspapers,
the professional intervention by
Professor Jega should now put to rest
the assumption that a two-party
system can be manufactured from
some political factory. With books
hardly available in our universities, I
intend here to restate the theories
that have been advanced to explain
the two-party system as a
phenomenon in democratic politics.
Such an academic exercise, I believe,
will be helpful to our political science
students with interest in the study of
political parties, and also the policy
makers in their search for the
appropriate party system for Nigeria.
Although a two-party system,
desirable as it may or may not be, is
a rare feature among democracies, it
has attracted a great deal of analysis
and a considerable number of
explanations, helpfully grouped by
Frank Sorauf into four main
categories: institutional, dualist,
cultural and consensual.
The institutional theorists, best
represented by E.E. Shattsneider and
Maurice Duverger, argue that single-
member, plurality electoral systems
result in two-party systems” unlike
multi-member constituencies and
proportional representation” and that
an executive president acts as “a
catalyst for coalition among interests
that would normally be at
loggerheads”. This contention is
supported by Clinton Rossiter as a
result of his comparative analysis of
elections in the German Republic of
1919-33. In 1930 the system of
proportional representation produced
10 parties with 19 or more seats in the
Reichstag, but since the presidential
election turned the nation into one
vast constituency, all the parties were
forced into three, two coalitions and
the Communists.
The dualist theorists, among whom is
V.O. Key, postulate the dichotomy of
interests in American society. From
historical perspectives, they point out
that prior to the adoption of the
Constitution in 1787, the country was
divided into two camps along economic
and political lines, and that
thereafter the division over the
nature of constitutional government
presented two opposing schools: The
Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
Appraising the British experience,
George Kousoulas points out that
political groupings were initially
confined to members of the
aristocratic elite and revolved around
religious and dynastic issues: “the
17th century Puritans, organised in
opposition to the Crown and the so-
called royal prerogative were a
precursor of modern political parties”.
Their two major political parties of
today,the Conservative Party and the
Labour Party, still exhibit the
historical pro-and anti-monarchical
tendencies.
The cultural theorists, however,
remind us that political maturity is a
major determinant of the two-party
system. As Sorauf points out, the
Americans and the British “are willing
to make the kinds of compromise
necessary to bring heterogeneous
groups of voters into two political
parties”. Rossiter emphasises that
America’s two major parties are
“creatures of compromise, coalitions
of interest in which principle is muted
and often even silenced”. Political
maturity,for the purpose of clarity,
includes the competence of election
managers as well as the general
behaviour of polticians and the voting
public.
Finally, there are the social consensus
theorists who explain the successful
operation of various two-party
systems by the absence of
irreconcilable ideological divisions,
even though the leading spokesmen
may have adopted dogmatic positions
over certain issues, such as the
economy, the nature of the
constitution, and even the question of
religion. Leslie Lipson argues that the
secondary nature of divisive interests
among Americans makes the case for
compromise easy. As echoed by
Duverger “…a two-party system
cannot be maintained if one of the
parties seeks to destroy the
established order. At least it cannot
endure unless the party remains
always in opposition”.
From the above review, one is able to
understand that a successful two-
party system is a product of
evolution, something which cannot be
imposed as General Ibrahim
Babangida had once attempted to do
in his introduction of the defunct
Social Democratic Party and the
National Republican Convention. A
two-party system, if one must repeat
here, does not mean there are only
two political parties. A two-party
system simply means there are two
dominant political parties each capable
of winning major elections, while
others are regarded as minor political
parties or third parties.
The institution of the presidency, as
we may have observed, can bring a
two-party system about. In 1999 when
the presidency was zoned to the
South, the Northern-based All Peoples
Party (APP) co-operated with the
ethnic-based Alliance for Democracy
(AD) to challenge the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP). The main
reason the self-styled progressives
are determined to coalesce into a
single political party, the All
Progressives Congress, is for them to
be able to challenge effectively for
the presidency in 2015. A Nigerian
two-party system, which does not
necessarily mean a system of only two
political parties, can help our drive
towards integration if complemented
with a zoning policy that derives its
authority and legitimacy from the
national constitution.