Political Party System: Why Are We Members; If Few Will Decide Our Fate Through Consensus?

Political Party System: Why Are We Members; If Few Will Decide Our Fate Through Consensus?

By: Dr. James Bwala

These are the very questions some party membership was asking regarding happenings within party politics in Nigeria. And my thoughts on this are that, in democratic societies, political parties are meant to serve as vehicles for representation, participation, and accountability. They provide a platform through which citizens express their political preferences, compete for public office, and influence governance. However, within many political party systems—most notably that of Nigeria—the concept of consensus has evolved into a mechanism that concentrates power in the hands of a few, disenfranchising the vast majority of party members. This piece contends that the entrenched practice of consensus among party elites is not only undemocratic but also actively undermines the principles of participatory democracy, fostering corruption and dictatorship reminiscent of military regimes. To safeguard democracy’s true essence, it is imperative to critically revisit the consensus ideology and reinstitute the rights and voices of all party members in political decision-making processes.

At its core, democracy demands inclusion, transparency, and equality. Every card-carrying member of a political party should have an equal say in choosing candidates who represent their aspirations and values. Yet, the prevailing consensus model within the Nigerian political party system transforms these ideals into hollow formalities. Instead of empowering the collective membership, consensus becomes a tool wielded by party hierarchies—comprising national chairpersons, governors, powerful financiers, and other influential figures—to select candidates and dictate policies behind closed doors. This top-down approach obliterates internal party democracy and turns membership into a mere symbolic gesture devoid of real participation.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/zulum-leadership-humility-and-humanity/

The justification often given for consensus is the desire to avoid divisive primaries that could jeopardize party unity and electoral success. Proponents argue that consensual agreements prevent bitter factionalism, conserve resources, and project a united front to the electorate. While superficially plausible, this rationale is disingenuous when the process becomes exclusive and opaque, with decisions forged in secret meetings rather than through the broad consultation of party members. The so-called unity achieved is artificial; it masks deep resentment among sidelined aspirants and suppresses the natural contest of ideas fundamental to democratic evolution.

By restricting candidate selection to a handful of party elites, consensus fosters a culture of patronage and favoritism. Individuals who align themselves with dominant factions or offer financial inducements gain preferential treatment, while competent and popular candidates lacking elite connections are marginalized. This incentivizes corrupt practices as ambitious politicians seek to buy influence or broker deals with kingmakers. The consequences spill over into governance, where elected officials, indebted to their selectors rather than accountable to the people, prioritize personal or factional interests over public good. Hence, consensus does not merely distort internal party democracy—it also saps the quality and responsiveness of leadership at all levels of government.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/zulum-leadership-humility-and-humanity/

Indeed, the grip of consensus on candidate nomination echoes the authoritarianism it purportedly rejects. When decisions rest with a small clique operating without transparency or checks, the political party morphs into a microcosm of dictatorship. The voices of ordinary members are silenced; dissent is quashed under the guise of maintaining peace and order within the party. This stifling atmosphere discourages grassroots mobilization and political activism, eroding the vibrancy and dynamism necessary for democratic renewal. In effect, the consensus phenomenon creates a political monopoly, where power is recycled among an elite few, entrenching oligarchic control reminiscent of Nigeria’s past military regimes.

It is critical to emphasize that genuine consensus in democratic contexts differs fundamentally from the elite-driven version prevalent in many Nigerian parties. Authentic consensus arises from deliberation, negotiation, and compromise among broad-based stakeholders, each empowered to voice their views and influence outcomes equitably. It is neither a prearranged dictate nor the suppression of opposition. For democracy to thrive within political parties, institutions and culture must promote open contestation, respect for internal rules, and mechanisms for accountability. This includes transparent and competitive primaries, equal access to party resources by aspirants, and independent oversight bodies to enforce fairness.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/zulum-leadership-humility-and-humanity/

Reforming the consensus practice requires both structural and attitudinal changes. Party constitutions should explicitly enshrine the rights of members to participate meaningfully in candidate selection and policy formulation. Enforcement agencies and electoral commissions must rigorously police internal party elections, sanctioning violations such as imposed candidacies and manipulation of delegate lists. Civil society organizations and the media also have a vital role in exposing anti-democratic practices and educating the public on their rights within parties. Above all, political leaders must embrace a culture of inclusivity, recognizing that sustainable electoral success and legitimacy stem from empowering their membership base rather than manipulating it.

Also, technology offers promising avenues to enhance democratic participation. Digital platforms can facilitate wider consultation and voting processes, reducing the leverage of traditional gatekeepers and expanding grassroots engagement. Social media and mobile communication provide channels for members to hold leaders accountable and organize collective actions. When harnessed properly, these tools can disrupt entrenched power structures and democratize party decision-making.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/zulum-leadership-humility-and-humanity/

Some may argue that the chaos and fragmentation often witnessed during open primaries justify the status quo of elite consensus. However, this perspective overlooks the long-term costs of excluding the majority from decision-making. While competitive elections within parties may pose challenges, they foster political education, enhance representativeness, and strengthen legitimacy. The alternative is a sterile political environment dominated by elites disconnected from the electorate, increasing cynicism and apathy among citizens. Thus, preserving the integrity and vitality of democracy necessitates embracing participatory norms even if they introduce complexity into the process.

On this argument I still stand that the consensus model currently practiced within many political parties, particularly in Nigeria, constitutes a deliberate and damaging subversion of democratic principles. By concentrating decision-making in the hands of a few powerful insiders, it disenfranchises the broader membership, breeds corruption, and nurtures authoritarian tendencies that undermine the very foundations of democracy. The health of democratic governance hinges on restoring genuine participatory mechanisms that empower all members to choose their representatives freely and fairly. Revisiting and reforming the consensus ideology is not merely desirable but essential if democracy is to fulfill its promise of government by the people, for the people. Political parties must cease to be arenas of elite manipulation and instead become true vehicles of popular will—only then can democracy transcend rhetoric and become an authentic lived reality.

* James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja.

Political Party System: Why Are We Members; If Few Will Decide Our Fate Through Consensus?