Politicians are known for long-term planning. Those eyeing elective offices usually begin preparations early enough, familiarising themselves with the electorate and identifying with communities and party loyalists. In Nigerian politics, this process is often highly capital-intensive. Aspirants spend enormous resources supporting communities, empowering individuals, attending social functions, and building networks—all in a bid to warm their way into the hearts of prospective voters and party members.
Now imagine that after years of making sacrifices, building structures, and gradually earning acceptance among supporters and party faithful, some powerful individuals suddenly summon such politicians and order them to step down their ambitions for someone else.
That is precisely what is increasingly playing out in Nigerian politics today. One word has gradually become both fashionable and dangerous in the nation’s political space: consensus. What should ordinarily represent voluntary agreement among political stakeholders has, in many instances, degenerated into a convenient tool for imposing preferred candidates on party members and aspirants.
Across political parties and across the country, experienced politicians who have spent years building structures and cultivating grassroots support are suddenly pressured to step aside for anointed aspirants in the name of “party unity” and “strategic interest.” Internal contests are quietly discouraged, delegates are manipulated, and genuine ambitions are sacrificed at the altar of predetermined outcomes. The danger here goes beyond mere political unfairness; it is the gradual erosion of democratic culture within the very institutions expected to nurture and protect democracy itself.
Before Nigerian political elites introduced their own distorted interpretation of the concept, consensus ideally meant broad agreement reached voluntarily through negotiation, compromise, and mutual understanding among stakeholders. It should ordinarily occur when all relevant actors, including aspirants, sit together and freely agree that, for a particular election cycle, they will support a particular individual for strategic reasons. Such a decision must be inclusive, transparent, and mutually agreed upon. It should not be about a few powerful individuals sitting somewhere privately and merely releasing a list of preferred names as though the opinions and aspirations of others do not matter. In mature democracies, consensus emerges naturally through persuasion and negotiation—not through intimidation or coercion. Consensus itself is not inherently bad; the abuse of it, as currently being practised, is the real problem.
Unfortunately, powerful party leaders have increasingly turned consensus into a sophisticated tool of imposition. Candidates are often decided long before primaries are held—assuming the primaries even hold at all. Aspirants who are not favoured may initially protest loudly and threaten resistance, but as time goes on, they are pressured to withdraw “in the interest of peace” and “party unity”. Threats of suspension, marginalisation, political isolation, or loss of relevance are sometimes deployed to force compliance. In some instances, carefully prepared withdrawal statements are handed to such aspirants merely to read publicly or append their signatures to. Ironically, these statements often contain glowing praises of the very individuals responsible for suppressing their ambitions. Through such arrangements, delegates and ordinary party members are denied genuine choice. Most so-called consensus arrangements are simply impositions dressed up in respectable political language.
Perhaps the most painful aspect of these consensus arrangements is that experienced politicians are often sacrificed in favour of candidates with far less political exposure or competence. Politicians with stronger credentials, wider grassroots appeal, and deeper experience are pushed aside to make way for loyalists of presidents, former presidents, governors, ministers, and other influential political figures. The road is deliberately cleared for protégés of godfathers and politically connected newcomers. Merit, competence, political experience, and grassroots acceptance become secondary considerations, while loyalty and patronage become the major criteria for selection. Democracy inevitably suffers whenever experience and credibility are sacrificed on the altar of favouritism.
There is no doubt that imposition weakens democracy because it destroys internal party democracy. Political parties are supposed to function as democratic institutions where aspirants freely compete, and members exercise genuine choice. However, when primaries become mere ceremonial exercises designed to legitimise predetermined outcomes, democracy itself is endangered. Such practices breed apathy, frustration, and resentment among party members and supporters. Aggrieved aspirants either defect to rival parties or remain within the party only to undermine it from within. In many cases, only those promised future appointments or political compensation reluctantly stay back.
The unfortunate consequence is the emergence of weak leadership. Candidates emerge not necessarily because they are the best or most popular, but because they are preferred by powerful interests. A democracy without credible internal competition eventually becomes hollow and superficial.
Ironically, almost all political parties in Nigeria are guilty of this anti-democratic tendency. From the ruling party to opposition parties and even smaller political platforms, the pattern is largely the same. The problem also cuts across the entire country, with virtually no region or state spared. It occurs at all levels—presidential, governorship, legislative, and local government chairmanship elections. This practice has existed for years. It neither started with the current political cycle nor is it likely to end with it unless deliberate reforms are undertaken. Clearly, the crisis is systemic rather than partisan.
What Nigeria is witnessing is the dangerous rise and consolidation of political godfatherism. Governors and influential party leaders increasingly determine who succeeds them or who gets party tickets, often without recourse to party members or even the electorate. In doing so, loyalty is consistently placed above competence and credibility. This amounts to nothing less than a robbery—and indeed a rape—of democratic principles. Democracy cannot thrive where political ambition depends solely on elite approval and patronage.
One important question remains: if godfathers and their anointed candidates are truly popular, why are they often afraid of open primaries? Genuine competition is clearly healthier than imposition. Transparent primaries are designed to test popularity, ideas, acceptance, and leadership capacity. Candidates earn legitimacy through fair contests, and internal competition ultimately strengthens political parties rather than weakening them. Victory or defeat should come from delegates and party members, not from secret backroom arrangements by a handful of political elites.
Politicians who defend imposition often argue that competitive primaries create division within parties. However, deep down, many of them know that this fear is often exaggerated. In reality, suppressing legitimate ambitions frequently creates deeper bitterness and more lasting divisions than transparent contests ever could. Fair and open competition is healthier than forced agreements. Aspirants who lose fairly in a credible process are more likely to accept defeat and prepare for future opportunities. What many party leaders fail to realise is that unity imposed from above is usually temporary, fragile, and unsustainable.
What Nigeria’s democracy urgently requires is the strengthening of internal party rules and democratic processes. Political parties must ensure transparent primaries, respect the choices of delegates and party members, and reduce the excessive influence of governors and political godfathers. Political parties must function as genuine institutions guided by rules and democratic values—not as personal estates controlled by a few powerful individuals.
Democracy does not begin on election day; it begins within political parties themselves. When candidates are imposed under the deceptive cover of consensus, the electorate is denied the opportunity to see the best ideas, strongest personalities, and most capable leaders emerge through fair and open competition.
Nigeria cannot continue preaching democracy nationally while undermining it internally. Political parties must resist the temptation to replace transparent contests with elite arrangements designed merely to satisfy a handful of powerful individuals. Consensus should be a product of persuasion, negotiation, and mutual agreement—not intimidation, coercion, and manipulation.
Ultimately, the healthiest democracy is one in which every qualified aspirant is free to contest, party members are free to choose, and victory belongs not to the most connected individual, but to the most deserving candidate.
Read the full article here
