Direct primaries best option for democracy – Professor Dauda

A Professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Abuja, Saleh Dauda, has criticised the growing adoption of consensus candidacy in Nigerian political parties, particularly the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), describing it as anti-democratic and a threat to internal party democracy. In this interview, he speaks on the origin, challenges and […]

A Professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Abuja, Saleh Dauda, has criticised the growing adoption of consensus candidacy in Nigerian political parties, particularly the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), describing it as anti-democratic and a threat to internal party democracy. In this interview, he speaks on the origin, challenges and implications of the practice, insisting that direct primaries remain the most credible means of selecting candidates.

 

 There’s a provision for consensus in Nigeria’s electoral laws. What does it mean?

The concept of consensus is an arrangement whereby political parties do not want to go into open primaries, probably because they foresee a situation where there will be a crisis. But in an ideal political system, for internal democracy to flourish, I think the best option is to allow people to choose their candidates in a free and fair manner. By doing so, that will ensure proper internal democracy. So, to me, the way I look at it is like an arrangement that foresees a possible crisis, therefore, to avoid that, you meet and arrive at a consensus. The only thing that I do not understand is who are those responsible for arriving at a consensus—is it the local government? Is it ward leaders? I don’t know, but that is my understanding.”

 

Can you tell us how the concept started in Nigeria?

Well, I do not know precisely when the concept or the issue of consensus started in the political history of Nigeria. All I can say is that it has become a recent phenomenon and is more pronounced within the ruling party, the APC. As I said earlier, it is designed to avoid a rancorous, competitive democratic choice of candidates. To me, it is anti-democratic, if you put it that way. The surprising thing is that more often than not, you hear governors saying they have no preferred candidates and that they will allow internal democracy to prevail. Then all of a sudden, there is a change—another page—where the same governors who stated clearly that they have no preferred candidates are the ones now coming with a preferred and endorsed candidate. So sometimes, this is the tragedy of Nigerian politicians: they say what they do not mean and mean what they do not even say.”

 

Is it working?

I would say that the system of consensus is undermining internal democracy, and people are not given the freedom to make a free choice. For example, look at what happened in Katsina Central in the House of Representatives. I read today that the son of a business mogul has been chosen as a consensus candidate to replace a performing member of the House of Representatives in Katsina Central. Well, my brother, you cannot rule out the possibility of money changing hands in order to arrive at a consensus candidate. My understanding is that all these so-called consensus candidates are just a name—they are people being supported by the governors, and the governors use their influence to convince others to adopt them. Remove the governors’ support, and my understanding is that probably these people would not have emerged as consensus candidates.”

 

You’re saying it comes with challenges?

You are going too far. Look at what is happening in Nasarawa. Despite the governor endorsing a particular candidate, a former Inspector-General of Police and another aspirant have all purchased forms. So that tells you that there was no consensus in the consensus—let me put it that way. There was no consensus in the so-called consensus. What that means is that those people will test the political waters. Unfortunately, in the Nigerian system, the governors control the machinery of the political parties, and I doubt whether we can wait and see whether anybody can have the muscle to defeat the preferred candidates of the state governors because they control the party machinery and also control resources. But then, there is an indication that the consensus candidates will be challenged in the primaries, and whatever happens, it is good for democracy. At least people will be allowed to exercise their free choice, even if they lose. That is my understanding.”

 

What does it imply when most aspirants reject the option?

It is a rebuke to the system of consensus candidates. They are saying no—we want internal democracy. It is a way of telling the governors that they are on the wrong path. They should allow the people to decide who should be the flag bearer, not the governors endorsing candidates who have not gone through competitive party primaries. So it is an open rebellion against the passive endorsement by the governors.”

 

Would indirect primaries be better?

Yes, I think any system that will allow people to vote for the candidate of their choice, whether direct or indirect, is more democratic than the consensus candidate. That is my view. Whether direct or indirect, it is more democratic than the consensus candidate.”

 

What alternative do you recommend?

My understanding is that the APC, as presently constituted, has brought together strange bedfellows. Therefore, the only way to manage or preempt any explosion, rebellion or crisis in the party is to try to see how they can mediate by towing the path of consensus candidates. But if you ask me my opinion on which one I would recommend to choose flag bearers, honestly, I would recommend direct primaries. To me, it is more democratic because one of the hallmarks of democracy is that legitimacy should be derived from the people—one man, one vote. It is not an oligarchy where somebody can just anoint you as a candidate and you call it democratic. I support direct primaries, properly managed, so that people will express their choice, rather than consensus candidates where the legitimacy of the candidate is questionable once it is not derived from the people but from a single individual—the governor—and a few others. Democracy is not a feudal estate where people think they are the ones to call the shots. No, it is a system of government whose legitimacy is derived directly from the people. That is the presidential system of government—it is not a parliamentary system. Legitimacy drives so much from free and fair elections, either in terms of electing flag bearers or electing people into various offices. The legitimacy of government is derived from the people through free and fair elections, period.”

 

Are there examples where consensus worked?

Well, I am not too sure of the facts, but there are cases in the Second Republic. For example, when Abubakar Umar in Bauchi State challenged the candidate of Abubakar Tatari, who was then the governor, and Abubakar Umar was becoming popular, Shehu Shagari had to fly to Bauchi and then convinced Abubakar Umar to step down for Abubakar Tatari. He did that, and it stabilised Tatari again. He was chosen as the NPN flag bearer and won the election. So in some instances, it has worked in the sense that people have been persuaded to step down for preferred candidates, and those candidates won the election. Whether it was a free and fair election is another thing entirely.”

 

What is your final message?

The politicians—unfortunately, the reality on ground is that the governors are like emperors in the states. I do not know why it is like that. But my advice is that governors should allow internal democracy to prevail in the choice of candidates, whether for House of Assembly, councillors, House of Representatives, Senate, governors and even the president. I can tell you it is a gloomy picture, but that is my advice. You are talking of a situation whereby in some states, if the governor has not asked you to go and buy a form to contest for councillor or local government chairman, if you do, you are just wasting your money. But I am appealing that they should allow internal democracy to prevail at the grassroots, from the state up to the national level. That is my view.