The dream of the founding fathers of any political party in the world is for their members to share the same vision with them, to follow their footsteps, and to preserve their enduring legacies. These are naturally what the successive members of the party are supposed to uphold especially when the vision and legacies meet the challenges of their time. But when the reverse is the case as a result of unexpected changes in the political equation, immediate changes must be effected in the party to avert colossal defeat during elections. The founding fathers of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) had a controversial informal agreement sometimes in 2002 of rotating (zoning) of strategic elective positions along the country’s north and south axis. Their motive was for the party to gain national acceptability from the diverse ethnic groups in the country and to most importantly meet the agitation of the people of the south western part of the country. Now that PDP had dominated the political atmosphere in the country; with relative national acceptability and no any scores to settle with the people of any part of the country, the zoning arrangement must be jettisoned to create an egalitarian Nigerian state.
With the demise of our beloved President Umaru Yar’adua--a northerner, and the ascension of his deputy, Vice President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan-- a southerner to the seat of power before the formal termination of Yar’dua’s first-four-year tenure in 2011, the political equation has been significantly altered. This incident had caused tension in the political arena, with the conservatives mostly from the northern part of the country insisting that the current president should not contest, per the gentleman agreement reached in 20...
... middle of paper ...
...s to meet the aspirations of the 150 million Nigerians.
Although a non-PDP member may not care so much on the zoning agreement in the PDP, but it is important that Nigerians should pressure the party to do the right thing because, whatever decision the party takes, it will affect us all. In view of the aforementioned fact, we must be ready to throw our weights on any matter that will directly or indirectly affect us as a nation. We must, as a matter of urgency, address other issues like electoral reform and strict compliance with the rule of law, zero tolerance for corruption and fight any form of undemocratic tendencies by our leaders. Finally, cancelling the zoning agreement is just one step forward in consolidating the gains of democracy in the country. We must take the advantage of the present situation and press for a meaningful change that we all believe in.
The political cartoon by Nick Anderson depicts Ralph Nader standing at a podium addressing American society’s “throw away mentality”. Meanwhile a citizen in the background is casting her vote for the green party behind him. Ironically, the ballot drops into a waste basket, thus a wasted vote. We now realize that Nader is not talking about the environment, but addressing the issue of how the general public views votes for 3rd party candidates. This cartoonist feels that we should reform our views on 3rd party candidates and vote for who we think would make the best president, despite there chance of winning or not.
Did you know that the current leader of the New Democratic Party used to be a Liberal? Thomas Mulcair became the leader of the New Democratic Party after the death of Jack Layton. The New Democratic Party (NDP) is one of the major federal political parties in Canada. The NDP was formed in 1961 as the result of the merger of two different parties. There are numerous reasons why the people of Canada should vote for the NDP. Citizens of Canada should vote for the New Democratic Party because if elected, they promise to improve the environmental situation, provide better health care for Canadians, and improve the economy in Canada.
The Green Party of Canada, also known as the GPC, is a minor Canadian federal political party that is known for preaching ecological wisdom. Founded in November of 1983 in Ottawa, GPC currently holds one seat in the House of Commons. GPC was highly motivated by observing the West German Green Party, which overcome great odds to win 27 parliamentary seats.2 Over the past several years, GPC has made remarkable strides to advance its political platform and gain a voice in the House of Commons. In 2000, GPC received only 0.8% of the votes and received zero seats in the House. However, GPC heavily improved in the 2004 federal election, winning 4.3% of the votes. After this “electoral breakthrough,” GPC earned a great deal of respect and garnered attention in the mass media.2 More importantly, by receiving 4.3% of the votes, GPC qualified for federal funding. By doing so, GPC received much-needed subsidies that would eventually play a huge role in its emergence in Canadian politics. Four years later in the 2008 federal election, GPC received 6.8% of the votes to ensure that green issues would be discussed in policy agendas of Canadian government.
It is important to note that although realignment is comprised of characteristics, some of these characteristics will be evident in one election, but not in another. For a better understanding, of the characteristics that define realignment, this essay will firstly use a specific case study that emphasizes the attributes required for a critical election and secondly apply these characteristics to the current 2016 elections to determine whether a realigning election is being paved. Firstly, the dominant societal issue that disrupted the political order of the National Party was racial segregation and the termination of apartheid. Secondly, while the National Party promoted the apartheid system, the African National Congress (though at the time the party was illegitimate) advocated for the termination of racial segregation (Encyclopaedia Britannica).
The New Federalist Party Part I As the sole member of the New Federalist party, it is with great honors that I now present to you the very first New Federalist platform. PREAMBLE The growing dissension between the two major political parties today has drawn them away from the public's views. It has been determined that the citizens of the United States cannot get what they want from the current major parties.
Preamble As we look back upon the 20th Century, we see the birth of American prominence. The century is marked by glorious American achievements ranging from the birth of the Space Age to the development of the Information Age. Now, as we venture through the new millennium, the potential for further American prosperity is enormous. At times this journey will be a perilous quest, but with valiant leadership this nation shall flourish.
If I was a citizen in the United States of America back in 1790, I would want to be part of the Federalist Party. The Federalist Party was created by Alexander Hamilton, and his party wants a strong central government in America with power given to the wealthy and political leaders. The only other party back then was the justly named Anti-Federalist party. The Anti-Federalist party was started by Thomas Jefferson and this party had completely opposite views to the Federalists. Anti-Federalists focused on power among the individual states, as opposed to having a powerful central government. I would rather be a part of the Federalist Party because I agree with their decisions on the Bank of the United States, future American economy, changes to the Constitution, and their debate on which people should be allowed to participate in government decisions.
The election in 1912 brought a new Political Party to the ballot. Americans were used to Democrats and Republicans, but they now had the Bull Moose Party or Progressives. The Progressives were those who “firmly believed that they could change society for the better, and even come close to a state of perfection” (Bowles, M.D., 2011). The Progressives were “committed to the principle of government by a self-controlled democracy expressing its will through representatives of the people,” (Bull Moose Party, 1912). Theodore Roosevelt was and is the most famous of the Progressives and Woodrow Wilson who was a Progressive Democrat, would go head to head for election as President of the United States. Roosevelt had been President of the United States from 1900-1907. Each of them had their strong points and ideals of what needed to be accomplished to build a stronger nation, but what those ideals were and how to go about enacting them was very much different. Even though both were leaders of the Progressive Movement, Roosevelt and Wilson were very different men.
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Although the United States is moving toward a more democratic political system, the framers of the constitution aimed at creating a republic government. The word democracy is never even mentioned in the United States Constitution. Our modern government is a blend of both democratic and republican ideals called the American Democratic Republic.
Despite being the constant underdog and loser in major elections third parties make some significant contribution to the political spectrum in the United States. Third Party Agendas are taken serious by the Democratic and Republican Parties and specific pieces of the Third Party Agendas are sometimes adopted by the two major parties. Third parties give discontented voters other alternatives. The Republican and Democratic Parties have been known to operate in similar styles and third parties give the voter the opportunity to express their discontent. The third parties in the United States are policy advocates and often are more specific about were they stand ideologically. Often the Republican and Democratic Parties try and take a moderate approach to political issues, and third parties are more conservative or liberal when it comes to political issues. Also, third parties tend to do exactly the opposite when their agenda concerns social issues. Then there is the ?spoiler factor? a Third Party Candidate can collect enough votes to change the outcome of a Presidential Election.
As a representative of the Algo ethnic group, I want to say that our people would like the new state to introduce a parliamentary system of governence. Parliamentarism is a system of government in which the head of government is elected by and accountable to a parliament or legislature. One could rightfully ask: What is our reasoning for desiring this? We think it is justified because in presidential systems the populace at large votes for a chief executive, who is the President, in a nation-wide election. This is revenant as the Algo comprises the minority of the population of the Republic of Jarth, which consists of only 1.1 million representatives in the whole state, compared to that of 2.9 million Randies, 3.8 million Dorfas and 2.2 million Takas living in the Republic of Jarth. One can reasonably assume that the outcome will most likely be that the cumulation of the majority’s vote will hinder the representation (in numbers) of the members of the minority in office. Subsequently, the Algo will have to live under the control of a leader from another ethnic group again, which the Algo members tremble at the thought of because we are proud of their ethnicity and do not wished to be shamed for it. On the other hand, in parliamentarism, the first step is an election of members of parliament, which are the political parties. This is imperative since it will allow the Algo to be able to choose the party we really share interests with....
In 1884 and 1885, the European powers met as the Conference of Berlin. Here, they decided to seize all of Africa and divide it into spheres of influence. After negotiations, imperialist wars, and conquests, the Europowers were successful. In 1900, the Colony of Lagos and the Protectorates of Northern and Southern Nigeria were formed. In 1914, these protectorates, including Lagos, were brought under a single colonial administration. However, the well-educated southern elite dominated this administration. The British believed it was best to not play a role in Nigeria’s everyday life. They decided to let the administration handle things to an exte...
The question to be answered in this paper is to what extent has the resource curse affected the Nigerian economy and government? Resource curse is a term that states the observation that countries that have a plethora of natural resources (e.g. oil, coal, diamonds etc.) usually have unstable political and economic structures (Sachs, 827). Nigeria is categorized as a nation that has succumb to the resource curse as it has an abundance of, and an overdependence on, oil, and a decreasing gross domestic product (GDP) (Samuels, 321-322). Nigeria is known for its specialization and overdependence on oil and according to Ross, nations of such nature tend to have high levels of poverty, large class gaps, weak educational systems, more corruption within the government, and are less likely to become democracies (Ross, 356). The political instability and regime change in Nigeria will be observed in this paper. The resource curse has greatly weakened Nigeria as it has led to the numerous regime changes, the hindering of the nation’s democratization, corruption in the government, as well as, civil conflict.
A few days ago, while many were rushing to post and repost on what is going on in Kaduna State and sharing and re-sharing the views of a certain politician, my good friend, Bimbo Ariyo, who is in UK, about 5,000 kilometers away, made a post and ask a simple question, "Hassan DM, what is going on?" I know what is going on, I've written about it, he read it. But he is also reading something else. So, I set out to visit the affected public institutions and take some pictures to send to him, before I respond again.
Okeke, Phil E. "Reconfiguring Tradition: Women's Rights and Social Status in Contemporary Nigeria." Africa Today 47.1 (2000): 49-63.