As the various political parties embark on nomination processes across the country, palpable anxiety now pervades the minds of many aspirants within the political space. This apprehension is not necessarily borne out of the fear of contest itself, but rather from the deep uncertainties surrounding the integrity and transparency of the processes. While the Electoral Act permits the use of direct primaries or consensus arrangements, most political parties today appear increasingly inclined toward the adoption of the consensus option.<\/p>\n
Ordinarily, one would have considered this method more efficacious, less acrimonious, and more economical than fiercely contested primaries. Unfortunately, the persistent abuse of the concept has made such a conclusion difficult to sustain. Today, therefore, I invite us to interrogate this dangerous and increasingly normalized phenomenon within our political architecture, the shrouded consensus model of candidate nomination by political parties in Nigeria. It is a process which, on the surface, appears peaceful, harmonious, and democratic, but beneath the veil often conceals the ugly realities of imposition, manipulation, godfatherism, and the systematic subversion of the will of ordinary party members.<\/p>\n
While this is utterly condemnable, on the other hand, I still realize that the culture of democracy has become so alien to the grassroots such that the process of ensuring internal democracy within political parties is recklessly being abused by those for whom it was designed. These are the grassroots members and leaders who have turned the process of primary election into a cash-and-carry affair. To this aspect we shall return in a subsequent edition of this column. Going forward, it is correct to say that in every genuine democracy, political parties are expected to serve as incubators of leadership, platforms for ideological competition, and institutions through which the people exercise political choice. They are supposed to deepen democratic culture by allowing aspirants to test their popularity and competence through transparent contests. Yet, in Nigeria, what we increasingly witness is not democracy within parties, but democracy by decree. We have gradually replaced competitive internal democracy with what may best be described as orchestrated consensus, a carefully scripted political arrangement in which a few powerful individuals, indeed what one may boldly describe as political mafias, determine who emerges as candidate, while the broader membership merely watches helplessly from the sidelines.
\nOn paper, consensus candidacy is lawful. The Electoral Act recognizes it as one of the legitimate methods through which political parties may nominate candidates. In principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with consensus. In mature democracies, consensus can emerge through genuine negotiations, voluntary withdrawals, ideological alignment, or collective sacrifice for party unity. It can reduce bitterness, save costs, and promote cohesion. However, what operates in Nigeria is often not consensus, but coercion disguised as consensus. It is rarely the product of free agreement; rather, it is frequently the outcome of intimidation, blackmail, patronage, political arm-twisting, and subtle threats. The tragedy of the Nigerian situation is that the word \u201cconsensus\u201d has become one of the most abused concepts in our political vocabulary. What is marketed to the public as consensus is, in many instances, nothing more than the coronation of preferred candidates by godfathers and entrenched party oligarchs. The so-called consensus meetings are often held in secrecy and attended by only a handful of power brokers, financiers, and political merchants whose primary concern is not competence, vision, integrity, or public acceptability, but rather loyalty to their interests and preservation of their influence.
\nOne is therefore compelled to ask: if truly there is consensus, why do aggrieved aspirants frequently emerge from these arrangements alleging intimidation and manipulation? Why do party members regularly complain that they were neither consulted nor involved? Why are aspirants pressured to withdraw in favour of \u201canointed candidates\u201d? Why do security agencies suddenly become visible around venues of party consultations whenever dissent emerges? These questions expose the hollowness and hypocrisy underlying many so-called consensus arrangements in Nigeria. The danger inherent in this phenomenon cannot be overstated. The first casualty of the shrouded consensus model is internal democracy itself. Democracy does not begin on election day; it begins within political parties.
\nA party that cannot conduct transparent internal processes cannot reasonably be expected to midwife transparent national elections. When party members are denied the right to choose their candidates freely, the entire democratic process becomes fundamentally compromised from inception. The electorate is then presented not with candidates produced through democratic competition, but with individuals imposed through elite conspiracies. This reality often results in the unfortunate thrusting of incompetent candidates upon the populace. For even where the eventual election is free and fair, if Candidate A is an imbecile, Candidate B a charlatan, and Candidate C utterly incapable, the electorate is left with no meaningful choice except to elect one among unsuitable options.
\nDemocracy then becomes reduced to a tragic exercise in selecting the lesser evil among political dregs. Sadly, this culture has steadily empowered the dangerous phenomenon of political godfatherism in Nigeria. The godfather phenomenon itself is not entirely new in politics. Throughout history, influential political figures have supported prot\u00e9g\u00e9s and successors. However, in Nigeria, godfatherism has evolved into a dangerous machinery of political ownership. Certain individuals now see political parties as personal estates and public offices as investments to be allocated to loyal clients.
\nCandidates are no longer selected based on merit, competence, ideological clarity, or capacity for service, but on their willingness to submit themselves to the dictates of political overlords. The implications for governance are devastating. When candidates emerge through imposition rather than genuine popularity, they often become more accountable to their sponsors than to the people. Their first loyalty is usually not to the Constitution, public welfare, or development, but to the godfathers who facilitated their emergence. Governance then becomes transactional. Public resources are deployed not for development but for political settlement. Contracts become compensation packages. Appointments become instruments of patronage. State institutions gradually become extensions of political cartels. There is an old Yoruba proverb that says, \u201c\u1eb9ni t\u00ed \u00f3 b\u00e1 san ow\u00f3 \u00ecj\u00f3 ni y\u00f3\u00f2 pa \u00ecl\u00f9,\u201d meaning, \u201che who pays the piper dictates the tune.\u201d This proverb perfectly captures the crisis confronting Nigerian politics today. When godfathers single-handedly determine candidates through manipulated consensus arrangements, governance naturally becomes captive to private interests.
\nThe people may vote during general elections, but the real decisions would already have been taken long before the ballots are cast. Perhaps even more dangerous is the psychological effect this system has on younger politicians and emerging leaders. It discourages merit, hard work, ideological commitment, and healthy political competition. Many competent and visionary young politicians now believe that without political godfathers, enormous financial war chests, or unquestioning loyalty to entrenched party leaders, they stand little chance of emerging through party structures. This has led to widespread political cynicism and voter apathy. Citizens increasingly perceive politics not as a noble avenue for service, but as a closed club controlled by a few powerful interests. The constituencies of many politicians now lie not with the people, but with their political fathers. It is therefore unsurprising that many of our brightest minds avoid active political participation.
\nWhy would a credible individual invest time, resources, and energy in a process whose outcome appears predetermined? Why would principled aspirants subject themselves to humiliating negotiations in hotel rooms where political tickets are allegedly traded like commodities? In many instances, primary elections merely become ceremonial rituals designed to legitimize decisions already taken elsewhere. One must also interrogate the hypocrisy that frequently accompanies this process. Ironically, many political actors who loudly condemn electoral malpractice at the national level are themselves perpetrators of anti-democratic practices within their parties. They demand free and fair elections from electoral commissions while simultaneously suppressing internal democracy within their own political organizations. This contradiction lies at the very heart of Nigeria\u2019s democratic fragility. One simply cannot build democratic governance upon undemocratic foundations. The judiciary itself has repeatedly been dragged into the consequences of these flawed processes. Nigerian courts remain perpetually flooded with pre-election disputes arising from contentious primaries and disputed consensus arrangements.
\nAspirants challenge alleged impositions, forged withdrawal letters, manipulated delegate lists, and exclusion from nomination processes. In many cases, courts have nullified candidacies because parties failed to comply with their own constitutions or electoral guidelines. Yet, despite these judicial interventions, the culture persists because the political elite often view the law not as a moral compass, but merely as an obstacle to be circumvented. Now that the judicial space has been significantly narrowed by the provisions of the new Electoral Act, the fear is that political brigandage may further increase with greater impunity. What makes the situation even more troubling is the role played by corrupt party leaderships. Many party executives, who ought to act as neutral custodians of internal democracy, have instead become willing instruments in the hands of powerful interests. Membership registers are manipulated. Screening processes are weaponized.
\nParty guidelines are selectively applied. Aspirants who refuse to \u201ccooperate\u201d suddenly discover fictitious disqualifications hanging over their heads, while those favoured by the leadership effortlessly scale every hurdle placed before them. In some cases, the consensus model is deployed not even to promote unity, but to avoid scrutiny. Competitive primaries expose the true popularity and capacity of aspirants. They create opportunities for debates, mobilization, and public engagement. But imposed consensus candidacies avoid these democratic tests entirely. They are often designed to shield weak candidates from transparent competition. It is easier to impose loyalty than to test popularity. Fellow Nigerians, the conversation becomes even more troubling when one realizes that this model has gradually normalized political exclusion. Women, youths, and independent-minded aspirants are usually the greatest victims. Since they often lack access to entrenched patronage networks, they are easily sacrificed in consensus arrangements dominated by wealthy political elites. Thus, the rhetoric of inclusion constantly preached by political parties rarely translates into reality. Ironically, however, these imposed arrangements do not even guarantee political stability. In fact, they often produce the exact opposite. Aggrieved aspirants defect to rival parties. Internal crises deepen. Litigation multiplies. Parallel factions emerge. Many electoral defeats suffered by major political parties in Nigeria can be traced directly to resentment arising from manipulated primaries and imposed candidacies. Political parties repeatedly fail to appreciate that genuine inclusion produces stronger unity than enforced consensus. Across the world, successful democracies thrive not because they are free from disagreements, but because they have institutionalized transparent mechanisms for resolving them. Democracy is noisy by nature. It accommodates competition, dissent, negotiation, and compromise. The attempt to suppress these natural democratic processes under the guise of consensus ultimately weakens institutions and erodes public trust. Nigeria must therefore begin an honest national conversation about internal party democracy. Political parties must return to their constitutions and democratic ideals. Consensus, where adopted, must be genuinely voluntary, transparent, and broadly participatory. Aspirants should willingly withdraw, not under coercion or intimidation. Party members should genuinely endorse consensus candidates through open and credible processes, not through scripted endorsements orchestrated by political merchants. The Independent National Electoral Commission must also strengthen oversight of party primaries within the limits permitted by law. Civil society organizations, the media, and citizens must continue to expose anti-democratic practices within political parties. Democracy cannot survive where political parties themselves become authoritarian structures. Most importantly, Nigerians themselves must reject the dangerous culture of political idolatry.
\nDemocracy is bigger than political godfathers. No individual should become so powerful that the destiny of entire political parties rests solely on his whims and preferences. Political leadership must be earned through credibility, persuasion, and public acceptance, not distributed through secret political conclaves. The future of Nigeria\u2019s democracy depends significantly on the health of its political parties. If internal democracy continues to collapse under the weight of manipulation and imposed consensus, public confidence in the democratic process itself may steadily erode. And once citizens lose faith in democratic participation, the consequences for national stability may become unpredictable. As I conclude this intervention, I am reminded of another profound Yoruba proverb: \u201c\u00e0gb\u00e0 k\u00ec \u00ed w\u00e0 l\u00f3j\u00e0 k\u00ed or\u00ed \u1ecdm\u1ecd tuntun w\u1ecd\u0301,\u201d meaning, \u201celders cannot be present in the marketplace and allow the head of a newborn to hang awkwardly.\u201d The proverb speaks to responsibility, guidance, and moral duty.
\nOur political elders, not necessarily in terms of age, must understand that leadership is not about controlling the future through imposition, but about nurturing the future through fairness, transparency, and democratic integrity. To this extent, I register my appreciation to the President of Nigeria, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, for directing the conduct of direct primaries in the ruling party. Although this is yet to be seen, it is my hope that there will be compliance by the party leadership. Indeed, as John Stuart Mill famously warned, \u201call it takes for a nation to decay is for good people to keep quiet.\u201d Nigerians must therefore wake from political complacency and begin to agitate against this dangerous trend as a matter of urgent public importance and national emergency. Nigeria deserves political parties that produce leaders through transparent competition, not secret arrangements. We deserve a democracy where consensus reflects collective agreement, not elite conspiracy. We deserve a political culture where candidates emerge because the people genuinely desire them, not because godfathers decree them. Until then, what we call consensus may remain nothing more than democracy wrapped in shadows.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As the various political parties embark on nomination processes across the country, palpable anxiety now pervades the minds of many<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":22024,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-from-the-grassroots"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenewsnow.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22023","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenewsnow.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenewsnow.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenewsnow.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenewsnow.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22023"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/thenewsnow.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22023\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22025,"href":"https:\/\/thenewsnow.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22023\/revisions\/22025"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenewsnow.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22024"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenewsnow.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenewsnow.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenewsnow.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}