“Consensus Is Selection” — Is Nigerian Democracy Quietly Dying?

“Consensus Is Selection” — Is Nigerian Democracy Quietly Dying?
... From Competitive Primaries to Political Anointments, a Growing Debate Over Whether Citizens Still Truly Choose Their Leaders

By Adolphus Nwaru 

***

A troubling question is quietly gathering momentum in Nigeria’s political space ahead of the 2027 elections:

If candidates are “selected” before voters even speak, is democracy still alive?

For some observers, the answer is uncomfortable.

For others, it is obvious.

And for a growing number of Nigerians, the concern goes beyond elections — it touches the soul of democracy itself.

At the centre of the latest debate is a provocative claim made in Owerri, Imo State capital, by public affairs analyst Sunday Osuji, who argues that what many political parties now describe as consensus is, in reality, political selection disguised as internal democracy.

His argument is simple but explosive:

“Consensus,” he suggests, has increasingly become a polite political word for imposition.

The statement has triggered renewed conversations across political circles and social media, reopening an old national argument about power, party control, and whether Nigerian democracy is gradually becoming theatre rather than participation.

When most Nigerians think of democracy, attention usually turns to election day — ballot papers, campaign promises, polling units, and final results.

But political analysts insist democracy often rises or dies long before citizens cast votes.

The first battlefield is the party primary.

That is where candidates emerge.

That is where internal competition happens.

That is where party members are expected to deliberate, persuade, negotiate, and choose flag bearers through open participation.

In theory, primaries are democracy before democracy.

But critics argue that many Nigerian political parties have moved increasingly toward closed-door negotiations, elite bargaining, and predetermined outcomes presented later to party faithful as “consensus.”

According to Osuji, this trend represents a dangerous weakening of democratic culture.

His criticism reflects a sentiment increasingly heard across party lines: aspirants no longer compete as intensely because outcomes may already have been negotiated by political power brokers.

Perhaps the most emotionally charged part of Osuji’s argument is his nostalgia for what he describes as a more competitive political culture.

He recalls a period when aspirants allegedly moved from village to village, meeting delegates, attending community gatherings, explaining manifestos, and persuading party members to trust their vision.

Politics, he argues, once demanded persuasion.

Candidates reportedly fought for support.

Meetings stretched late into the night.

Local party structures mattered.

Aspirants negotiated loyalty not through assumption but through engagement.

In his telling, politics was less scripted and more contested.

“There was a time politics was politics,” he suggested — a phrase that has since stirred emotional reactions online.

For many Nigerians frustrated with elite control of political structures, such memories resonate deeply.

But others quickly challenge this romantic picture.

Was politics truly more democratic then?

Or simply more visibly competitive?

Not everyone is buying the nostalgia.

Critics argue that Nigeria has never experienced a golden age of internal democracy.

They insist money politics, godfatherism, zoning arrangements, intimidation, elite interference, ethnic calculations, and political bargaining have always existed.

The difference, they say, is visibility.

In earlier decades, political influence may have been less hidden but no less powerful.

Backroom deals allegedly existed.

Candidate imposition allegedly existed.

Strongmen allegedly controlled party structures.

The only difference may be that modern politics now performs consensus more openly.

To these critics, Osuji’s concerns may reflect disappointment with politics rather than proof of democratic collapse.

Some even argue that competitive primaries themselves sometimes worsened divisions, triggered violence, encouraged excessive spending, and weakened party unity.

This creates an uncomfortable national dilemma:

Are consensus arrangements protecting party stability — or suffocating democracy?

Defenders of consensus insist it is not automatically undemocratic.

Political parties worldwide sometimes adopt negotiated candidate emergence to avoid destructive internal battles.

Supporters argue that when stakeholders voluntarily agree on a candidate, consensus can reduce tension, save costs, and strengthen collective focus.

In Nigeria’s volatile political environment, where primaries sometimes produce bitterness, defections, and lawsuits, consensus is often defended as a stabilizing mechanism.

But critics insist the keyword is voluntary.

Their concern is that what is publicly called consensus often emerges under pressure, elite influence, or informal coercion.

Party members, they argue, may merely ratify decisions already taken elsewhere.

If this happens repeatedly, internal democracy weakens.

Participation shrinks.

Aspirants lose motivation.

Citizens disengage.

Eventually, democracy risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.

The ballot still exists.

The process still looks democratic.

But meaningful competition may already be gone.

Perhaps the greatest risk in weakened party primaries is not merely unfairness — but apathy.

When citizens begin to believe political outcomes are predetermined, they participate less.

Why campaign if decisions are already made?

Why vote if candidates are imposed?

Why trust institutions if political competition feels scripted?

Political scientists warn that democratic legitimacy depends not only on results but on belief in fairness.

The perception of openness matters.

Even imperfect democracies survive when citizens feel their voices still count.

Once trust collapses, cynicism replaces participation.

And cynicism, history shows, is dangerous for democratic systems.

Low voter turnout, youth disengagement, political violence, and rising distrust often flourish where people feel excluded from meaningful influence.

This raises a bigger question beyond primaries:

Could Nigeria’s greatest democratic crisis be loss of trust rather than flawed elections themselves?

The concern surrounding party primaries speaks to something deeper than candidate selection.

It touches political legitimacy.

Many Nigerians increasingly fear that democracy may be turning into performance — visible elections without meaningful competition beneath them.

Campaign posters appear.

Rallies happen.

Votes are cast.

But critics ask whether the most important decisions have already happened elsewhere.

Inside hotel rooms.

Inside elite meetings.

Inside conversations among party financiers and power brokers.

If true, democracy risks becoming ritual rather than participation.

And yet, defenders argue that no democracy is perfect.

Even established democracies struggle with elite influence, money politics, and candidate gatekeeping.

The challenge, they say, is reform rather than despair.

As the 2027 elections approach, Nigeria faces a difficult democratic test.

Political parties may ultimately determine not just candidates but citizens’ faith in governance itself.

If primaries feel competitive, transparent, and participatory, confidence may grow.

If outcomes feel scripted, distrust may deepen.

The larger debate sparked by Sunny Osuji’s comments therefore goes beyond nostalgia.

It forces Nigerians to confront uncomfortable realities about power, participation, and representation.

And perhaps the hardest question remains this: Was Nigerian politics ever truly democratic — or are citizens only now noticing how power has always worked?