The advantage which democracy supposedly has over all other forms of government is its inclination to guarantee the politics of equality. As a matter of fact, it is in a democracy that several freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of association etc. are usually found. That is why democracy is generally hailed as the politics of equality. However, in many developing societies where the winner-takes-all scheme is in vogue, the said equality can hardly be attained. A good example is the refusal of those in authority to tolerate political dissent. Many people in government believe that political opposition and criticisms should not be tolerated because they can create room for the government in power to lose the next set of general elections. For this reason, so much is done to suppress political opposition. It is therefore virtually impracticable to imagine that there can be politics of equality within a terrain that operates outside the rule of law.
Another common terminology that is also wrongly understood is that which says democracy is a game of numbers. To start with, it is wrong to perceive the term as a stand-alone phenomenon. The fact that it is only a political party that wins the highest number of lawful votes that can form a government projects the principle of majority rule. But then, there is a second leg to the principle which envisages the protection of minority rights. Therefore, majority rule and the protection of minority rights must both be observed before we can follow the saying that whereas the majority will have their way, the minority must have their say. Every democrat must bear in mind that the majority cannot have their way without first listening to whatever the minority have to say. Each time the majority forcefully have their way within a political system, the landscape of such a system shifts away even if slightly from democracy.
Last week, my thought process was completely filled with the above viewpoints while watching events leading to the nomination of Governor Biodun Oyebanji as the flag bearer of the All-Progressive Congress (APC) in the next governorship election in Ekiti state. The governor was allegedly nominated by what was called ‘consensus’ following the report that there were no other validly nominated aspirants to compete with him for the contest. Of course, no one is sure if the report is entirely true because only a few months ago, the APC in Ekiti State, had multiple aspirants seeking the party’s ticket for the 2026 governorship election. The leading aspirants included Kayode Ojo, Abimbola Olawumi as well as Atinuke Omolayo and the governor himself, Biodun Oyebanji. A few days to the primary election, the situation suddenly changed. First, the party’s National Working Committee, NWC disqualified two of the aspirants, Ojo and Olawumi over their alleged inability to meet the necessary requirements of the party’s constitution.
The disqualification left only Oyebanji and Omolayo to contest the primary election but Omolayo later withdrew and endorsed the governor. As a result, the party switched the mode of primary from direct voting by delegates to a consensus mode in which the congress was now to merely ratify Oyebanji as the consensus aspirant to serve as the standard bearer of the APC. Those who have cause to believe that the exercise was manipulated cannot be ignored because in Nigeria, political party leaders are known to hide under the consensus or other inexplicable modes to return their preferred candidate as unopposed. Indeed, going by the body language and general disposition of the National Secretary of the party, Ajibola Basiru, there were insinuations that the party leadership at both state and national levels were in support of Oyebanji’s second term ambition.
What happened in Ado Ekiti last week, was not different from what normally happens in many parts of Nigeria in which a ratification of the incumbent as the party’s candidate often replaces a competitive primary election. According to media reports, some party members publicly claimed that Oyebanji’s nomination was essentially a coronation adding that the way was deliberately cleared for the governor. As if to give credence to this viewpoint, hundreds of party members had earlier protested at the APC national secretariat in Abuja, rejecting the consensus arrangement and demanding a transparent and thorough primary election. Already, one of the disqualified aspirants has gone to court. With this, the term consensus is redundant. The protesters were however ignored because the APC had itself relied on the consensus cover more than once before. Whereas there are two higher and more credible forms of party primaries (direct and indirect voting) which can give people ample confidence, the party often reverts to the manipulative consensus mode.
Why can’t a direct or indirect primary election that guarantees some form of rational competition in which party members or delegates are involved be adopted by the APC to establish its emergence as a major and vibrant party? Why does the APC give an impression that it is a pseudo democratic party by always tolerating the conduct of some party primaries from the back door in favour of one member against another? If election is truly a game, as is commonly opined by analysts and scholars would the APC pick its players with favour or through evidence of track record of performance? If as we hear consensus was added to the approved primary modes just to give room to parties to utilize the mode suited to their peculiar environment, why can’t all APC branches organize primary elections as was done nationwide to pick flagbearers Buhari for the 2019 and Tinubu for the 2023 Presidential elections?
There is perhaps no better time than now to call on President Tinubu to from now on, insist on only credible primaries in the APC that can enhance internal democracy. Consensus shortchanges members who were not part of the supposed consensus. In fact, the argument that it was the President that asked one of the aspirants to step down for the governor is not exciting. We hope it is not true! Otherwise, it would mean that if he didn’t step down, he would have defeated the governor in a credible contest. Unknown to party leaders, the use of imposed consensus only confirms that we are yet to have any true democratic political party in Nigeria as war lords have to assemble in one state as they did last week in Ado Ekiti to coronate an anointed candidate. If the challenge of an ordinary party member can compel an incumbent to frantically mobilize federal and state legislators as well as local government council members and all other political appointees to ward off the challenge, it means the challenger is in reality a more confident aspirant.
One would have hoped that last week’s Ado Ekiti experience would be the last that party chieftains would rise against a member’s ambition. After all, it is not compulsory that a governor must win re-election. In the strict sense, it is better for the party and the society to always let the best candidate triumph. Unfortunately, there is doubt if more fake primary elections are not likely to come up. What provokes this doubt is that the APC has done it before by creating a terminology that thwarts proper party primaries. At one point, the party came up with a deafeningly publicised but illegal mode which they called ‘automatic ticket’ by which they claimed to be rewarding some party leaders who helped the party during certain critical times. It is anti-democratic to do that. If a candidate is a President or Governor who has done well, members or delegates would in a credible contest freely vote en masse for such good performers, just as there are other forms of patronages than derogating from pure democracy.
Another reason why we can conveniently conclude that the last is yet to be heard of fake primaries is that other parties that are now criticizing the APC are not better. Only last week we watched on national television former Governor Sule Lamido threatening to go to court if the PDP did not stop hoarding the forms for the contest for the position of Chairman in the forthcoming PDP convention. Soon after, some top party chieftains held a press conference to say Kabiru Turaki was the consensus candidate.
The main point in today’s piece is that the consensus candidate of one group should not extinguish the ambition of another aspirant. If a candidate truly enjoys some degree of consensus he should not be scarred of contesting against others who are less favoured. The point to be restated therefore is that if a group of people should gang up against other candidates and produce a preferred candidate such a candidate cannot be converted into a consensus candidate. He remains the preferred candidate of the manipulative party chieftains and should be ready for a contest.
The post Imposed consensus: Bane of Nigeria’s party system, by Tonnie Iredia appeared first on Vanguard News.
