Opinion
By
Chukwudi George Ozalla
Nigeria’s recent wave of party primaries has once again thrown the country’s democratic credentials into sharp public scrutiny, exposing a pattern that many citizens now describe as a ritual of selection rather than a genuine process of election. Across political parties, especially within the ruling party and other dominant political structures, the conduct of primaries has raised fundamental questions about transparency, internal democracy, and the moral direction of Nigeria’s political system. What should ordinarily serve as the foundation for credible leadership recruitment has increasingly become a theatre of predetermined outcomes, managed figures, and political imposition disguised as consensus or popular choice.
In several states, reports from party delegates, observers, media, and even disgruntled aspirants point to a recurring pattern where votes appear not to reflect actual expression of will but rather a structured allocation of numbers to favoured candidates. In some cases, accreditation processes are rushed or poorly monitored, while in others, results are announced with figures that bear little resemblance to what was actually witnessed on ground. The shameful spectacle of votes moving in dramatic leaps, sometimes from modest counts to inflated totals within minutes, has become a troubling symbol of how deeply trust has eroded in the process. These incidents are often carried out in full public glare, sometimes even captured on video, yet they are absorbed into the system without consequence, reinforcing the belief that political outcomes are increasingly negotiable rather than earned.
Direct primaries, once presented as a more democratic alternative that would allow broad party membership participation, have revealed their own structural weaknesses. In theory, they are meant to expand inclusion and reduce elite manipulation. In practice, however, they have often been reduced to logistical exercises vulnerable to manipulation, poor coordination, and outright falsification. Where party membership registers are not verifiable, where accreditation is weak, and where oversight is inconsistent, the system becomes an easy target for manipulation by those who control party machinery at the state or national level. The result is a process that looks democratic on paper but behaves otherwise in execution.
On the other hand, the consensus model, which many parties have also embraced, has not fared better in terms of credibility. Instead of reflecting collective agreement built on persuasion and internal negotiation, it has increasingly become a euphemism for imposition. In many instances, candidates are presented as having emerged through consensus when in reality such outcomes are crafted by executive pressure, financial inducement, or political intimidation. Aspirants are quietly persuaded to withdraw, not necessarily because they lack support or capacity to stand for election, but because the weight of authority, often from governors or influential power brokers, has already determined a preferred direction. This leaves other contestants with little option but to step aside, while the chosen candidate is presented to the public as a unified decision of the party.
This blending of manipulated primaries and forced consensus has created a political environment where popularity, grassroots appeal, and merit are no longer the primary determinants of candidacy. Instead, proximity to power, loyalty to dominant political figures, and alignment with internal power structures have become the real currency of political advancement. The implication is weighty. When the pathway to candidacy is not connected to genuine competition, the legitimacy of eventual office holders is weakened from the outset.
It is in this context that many citizens now argue that Nigeria’s democracy is being quietly mocked from within. Elections, which should represent the purest expression of popular sovereignty, are increasingly preceded by selection processes that appear engineered to produce predetermined outcomes. The tragedy is not only in the existence of irregularities but in their normalization. What would ordinarily trigger outrage is often treated as routine political behaviour and many citizens now either laugh it off or downplay it. Allegations of inflated delegate counts, altered result sheets, compromised electoral officers, divided opposition forces, and induced voters are frequently dismissed as internal party matters or brushed aside as mere family affairs within political circles, even though their consequences eventually shape the quality of governance imposed on the wider public.
One of the most disturbing aspects of recent primaries is the visual evidence that has circulated widely. Footage of individuals announcing or adjusting figures in ways that defy basic arithmetic has become a recurring feature of the electoral cycle. In some instances, results are seen shifting rapidly in ways that suggest predetermined scripting rather than the counting of actual votes. These moments, rather than prompting institutional accountability, are often followed by hurried endorsements and public acceptance by party leadership. This reinforces a dangerous precedent where procedural integrity is secondary to political convenience.
The consequences of this pattern extend far beyond party politics. Deformative primaries, fragmented opposition structures, and the growing culture of induced voting create fertile ground for poor electoral outcomes and weak governance. When opposition parties are divided by internal disputes, personal ambitions, and external interference, the electorate is left with fewer credible alternatives. At the same time, the monetisation of politics through voter inducement further weakens the democratic process by shifting attention away from competence, ideas, and accountability toward immediate material gain. The combined effect is a political culture where elections gradually lose their value as instruments of genuine public choice.
If parties cannot conduct credible primaries, it becomes increasingly difficult to persuade the electorate that general elections will be any different. In this sense, the crisis of internal democracy becomes a national crisis of legitimacy.
Nigeria’s democratic journey has long been riddled with tension between institutional design and political practice. While constitutional frameworks and electoral laws exist to guarantee fairness, the enforcement of these rules often collapses when confronted with entrenched political interests. Political actors, particularly those with access to state resources or control over party structures, have learned how to navigate, bend, or outrightly bypass these rules in pursuit of predetermined outcomes. This creates a system where formal democracy coexists with informal authoritarian tendencies.
The role of governors and powerful political figures in shaping outcomes cannot be overlooked. In many states, the influence of executive authority over party structures is so pronounced that aspirants often enter contests with a clear understanding of who is favoured. This transforms primaries into ceremonial affirmations rather than genuine contests. The effect is that political parties gradually lose their identity as platforms of choice and begin to function as instruments of endorsement and arbitrariness.
The broader implication of this trend is the gradual alienation of the electorate. When citizens perceive that choices are already made before they are formally presented, political participation becomes performative rather than meaningful. Voter apathy is not simply a product of ignorance or disinterest, but often a rational response to a system perceived as predetermined. People withdraw not because they do not care, but because they believe their participation does not alter outcomes.
It is also important to confront the moral dimension of this crisis. A democracy is not sustained by institutions alone but by a shared commitment to fairness, accountability, respect for process, and the existence of a strong opposition capable of providing credible alternatives. When political actors knowingly manipulate outcomes, they are not merely engaging in strategic behaviour; they are undermining the ethical foundation upon which democratic legitimacy rests. The normalisation of such behaviour signals a troubling shift where success in politics is increasingly associated with control rather than credibility.
There is also the issue of public response. The fact that many of these irregularities are met with resignation or humour rather than outrage speaks to a deeper institutional fatigue. Citizens have seen similar patterns repeated over time, and in that repetition lies danger. When wrongdoing becomes predictable, it risks becoming acceptable. Yet acceptance does not erase its consequences. It merely delays the eventual cost, which often manifests in weakened institutions, fractured trust, and unstable governance.
Nigeria stands at a critical point where the choices made within political parties will significantly shape the quality of leadership that emerges at all levels of government. If primaries continue to operate as controlled exercises rather than competitive processes, then the country risks institutionalising a cycle where leadership selection is disconnected from public will. This disconnect eventually affects governance outcomes, as leaders who emerge through imposed or manipulated processes often carry weakened mandates and limited accountability to the electorate.
The question that continues to linger is when the system will correct itself. Repeated cycles of flawed primaries suggest that the problem is not merely procedural but structural and moral. It is rooted in how political power is conceived, acquired, and retained. Until there is a deliberate shift toward internal party reforms that prioritise transparency, enforce accountability, strengthen opposition credibility, discourage voter inducement, and protect the integrity of delegate or membership votes, the pattern is likely to persist.
Nigeria’s democracy is not lacking in frameworks. It is struggling with the conduct of those who operate within it. The credibility of any democratic system in the end depends not only on its laws but on the willingness of political actors to respect them even when it is inconvenient. Without that commitment, elections risk becoming elaborate performances that simulate democracy while undermining its essence.
What is currently unfolding in party primaries across the country is more than an internal political matter. It is a reflection of the broader health of the nation’s democratic culture. Unless confronted with urgency and sincerity, it will continue to erode the very foundation upon which the legitimacy of governance rests.
Publisher/Editor-in-Chief, NEWSCOUNT
