By Simbo Olorunfemi
So, I submitted here yesterday, that
“despite the landmines, with direct primaries, party members at the grassroots have MORE influence in who flies the party ticket.”
The operative word here is – MORE. Knowing that people, desperate to read things upside down, only see what they want to see, I put it in CAPS to draw more attention to it.
My thought was that it would help with context and an understanding that this was a comparative analysis between direct and indirect primaries.
Predictably, it did not, as some began to relay what had happened in some of the polling units, as if there was a contest of the fact that there were cases of manipulation and all sorts.
The question is – Did that make the direct primary option one in which party members had less influence than in the indirect primary? If the answer is YES. Say so, and give us reasons why you believe so.
But as we know, logical reasoning often appears to have taken a break here, especially in the political season, which never seems to end.
So, what’s my point?
I have been around politics for a while, on and off the field, taking the subject so seriously to the point of formally studying it. With developments in the field, I often pull back to observe and reflect, further to which I often put forward posers (hypotheses) open to validation or falsification.
A school of thought, which I partly agree with, even argues that the easier it is to falsify your hypothesis, the better it is. Well, the point is that I don’t have a problem with you disagreeing, challenging us with superior facts or insight. But to stray, as we often see, or resort to personal attacks or insults, as a few engage in, is to display ignorance and incivility, a toxic collabo for anyone.
So, back to the subject. My argument? That having been directly involved in both indirect primary elections and direct primary elections in recent election cycles, I have found that despite the imperfections and obvious manipulations, party members at the grassroots have a greater influence over the process in a direct primary elections in comparison with the indirect primaries.
That is not to say that the overwhelming influence of party leadership has not swayed outcomes in their preferred direction in some of the cases, it is to say that contrary to what prevails under the indirect primary option, it has not been as smooth-sailing as it would usually be.
In a few instances, grassroots support has helped some contestants overpower entrenched interests (explains why SOME big name Legislators failed at the primary elections), and in other instances it has helped some to stand their ground, while in many cases it has helped expose the corrupt underbelly of the process of electing people to represent the party at all levels. In fact, but for the ‘openness’ of the direct primary method, a lot of the high-handedness that often play out behind closed doors would not have been seen.
That is the point I have made. But there are arguments that some might make for the indirect primary elections as one which gives a greater latitude for influence by party members at the grassroots.
But here is what I have seen.
With the indirect primary elections, all that the contestant needs is to ‘take care’ of the delegates, without necessarily in
We saw that play out in full glare in 2022. In the election that I was directly involved in, I saw the ‘esteemed’ status of delegates. You had to carry them like eggs and pamper them.
With the direct primaries, it is much more difficult for any aspirant who does not have a good history with party leaders and members at the grassroots to make it.
That explains why legislators at national and state levels who took for granted connection with members and leaders at the grassroots have lost in the APC primary elections.
