Democracy without choice: How endorsement politics is undermining party primaries in Nigeria

By EJIRO OFOYE 

In recent times, Nigeria’s political space 

has increasingly taken on the character of a staged performance—one where outcomes appear predetermined long before the curtain rises. Across party lines, endorsements—often loud, orchestrated, and strategically choreographed—have begun to replace what should be the very soul of democracy: competitive, transparent, and credible primaries.

What is unfolding is not merely a political trend; it is a dangerous drift away from internal party democracy, a foundational pillar upon which representative governance rests.

Political parties, by their very nature, are meant to serve as vehicles for leadership recruitment and platforms for ideological contestation. In functional democracies, they are arenas where ideas clash, candidates are tested, and the will of party members determines outcomes. Political scholarship has consistently emphasized that parties are essential institutions for organizing government and ensuring accountability.

Yet, in Nigeria today, the reality is starkly different.

Across the political spectrum, what should be internal contests are being quietly substituted with endorsements from powerful stakeholders—governors, party executives, or influential blocs. These endorsements, while not inherently illegal, often carry the weight of coercion, subtly or overtly signaling that the race is already decided. The consequence is predictable: aspirants withdraw, delegates align, and the primary becomes a mere ritual to validate a predetermined choice.

This practice strikes at the heart of internal democracy.

Primaries are not ceremonial obligations; they are legal and democratic requirements designed to ensure that candidates emerge through a fair process. When these processes are manipulated or compromised, the consequences are far-reaching—fueling disputes, litigation, and at times, political instability. When party members are denied a genuine voice, the fallout extends beyond the party—it erodes public confidence in the entire electoral system.

The justification often advanced for consensus or endorsement politics is not without merit on the surface. Proponents argue that it reduces the cost of primaries, minimizes internal conflicts, and promotes party unity.

But this argument collapses when consensus becomes coercion.

True consensus must be voluntary, negotiated, and inclusive—not imposed. When powerful figures “anoint” candidates and present such decisions as consensus, it ceases to be democratic. It becomes, instead, an elite arrangement that excludes the very people democracy is meant to empower.

The consequences are profound.

First, it discourages competence. When candidates are selected based on loyalty rather than merit, the system rewards conformity over capacity. The absence of internal democracy weakens accountability and ultimately diminishes the quality of leadership.

Second, it breeds apathy. Party members, recognizing that outcomes are predetermined, disengage from the process. This disengagement inevitably spills over into general elections, where voter participation declines because citizens no longer believe their voices count.

Third, it fuels instability within parties. Ironically, the very practice meant to ensure unity often creates deeper fractures. When aspirants feel sidelined or unfairly treated, they defect, litigate, or work against the party from within. Nigeria’s political history offers numerous examples of how flawed primaries have triggered prolonged internal crises and weakened electoral fortunes.

More fundamentally, endorsement politics raises a troubling question: if political parties cannot practice democracy within their own structures, how can they be trusted to uphold it in governance?

The issue also intersects with broader concerns about the health of Nigeria’s democratic space. Strengthening internal party democracy is not optional; it is essential to preserving the integrity of the entire political system.

The way forward is clear.

Political parties must return to first principles. Primaries should be competitive, transparent, and credible. Delegates must be allowed to vote freely without intimidation or undue influence. Party constitutions and the provisions of the Electoral Act must be respected, not just in form, but in spirit.

Regulatory institutions, particularly the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), must also play a more proactive role in ensuring compliance. Civil society and the media must continue to hold political actors accountable, shining a light on practices that undermine democratic norms. 

Above all, party members must demand better. Democracy is not sustained by laws alone; it thrives when people insist on participation and resist manipulation.

Nigeria’s democratic journey has come too far to be reduced to a theatre of endorsements. The strength of any democracy lies not in the loudness of its declarations, but in the integrity of its processes.

If internal party democracy is allowed to collapse under the weight of endorsements and imposed consensus, then the danger is clear: elections may continue to hold, but democracy itself will quietly fade.

And history, as always, will remember.

•Dr Ofoye, A public affairs analyst, writes from Lagos.

The post Democracy without choice: How endorsement politics is undermining party primaries in Nigeria appeared first on Vanguard News.