By Oluwole Solanke
Introduction:
Democracy Beyond Mere Elections
Democracy is not merely the act of casting ballots or conducting elections at regular intervals. At its deepest and most enduring level, democracy is about the unrestrained freedom of citizens to participate in determining who leads them, who represents them, and who shapes the policies that govern their daily lives. The soul of democracy resides not in electoral ceremonies but in the living culture of openness, fairness, competition, and genuine respect for the collective will of the people. The moment any of these principles are systematically weakened, democracy does not simply stumble, it gradually loses its very essence and becomes a sophisticated instrument of political manipulation.
One of the most troubling trends threatening democratic values in contemporary political life, particularly in developing nations across Africa, is the growing imposition of so-called “consensus candidates” through backroom arrangements that completely bypass transparent and competitive primaries. Across political parties at every level of governance, a small circle of powerful and wealthy patrons now routinely decide who receives party tickets while ordinary members, grassroots activists, and legitimate aspirants are systematically sidelined, pressured into silence, or coerced into premature withdrawal.
What should be a vibrant and open democratic exercise is reduced to a carefully arranged political selection designed to serve the interests of a privileged elite. Citizens become spectators in the very system that is supposed to belong to them. The language of unity masks the reality of exclusion.
This is not democracy. It is political manipulation disguised as party harmony.
“Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
— Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863
Lincoln’s immortal words remind us that the defining characteristic of democracy is the centrality of the people, not the party leadership, not the political godfathers, and certainly not the few whose wealth buys them disproportionate influence over collective destiny. Imposed consensus candidacy surgically removes “the people” from the democratic equation while keeping the ceremonial language of popular participation alive for public consumption.
The Meaning and Importance of Internal Democracy
Political parties are not merely electoral machines; they are the foundational pillars of democratic governance. Before democracy can flourish at the national level, it must first take root and breathe freely within political parties themselves. Internal democracy, in its truest expression, means that every party member, regardless of social standing, financial capacity, or proximity to power, possesses equal rights to contest elections, campaign freely among fellow members, and cast their votes for candidates of their choosing without intimidation, inducement, or coercion.
Primaries, therefore, are not administrative formalities to be dispensed with when inconvenient. They are essential democratic instruments that guarantee fairness, promote transparency, sustain genuine participation, and lend moral authority to whoever eventually emerges as a candidate. When party leaders bypass primaries and impose preferred candidates under the banner of consensus, they do not merely inconvenience aspirants; they fundamentally deny party members the opportunity to exercise their most sacred democratic rights.
“Freedom cannot be achieved unless the women and men of our country have been emancipated from all forms of oppression. We must strive to be moved by a generosity of spirit that will enable us to outgrow the hatred and conflicts of the past.”
— Nelson Mandela
Political oppression does not always arrive in the form of military coups or authoritarian decrees. Far more insidiously, it can emerge through the silent and sophisticated suppression of democratic choice within the very institutions that claim to champion freedom. When a party member is told that the candidate has already been chosen and their vote is no longer necessary, democracy has suffered an injury no less severe than any electoral fraud.
Internal democracy also serves the long-term health of political parties themselves. Parties that practice genuine internal competition consistently discover hidden leadership talent, build stronger organizational capacity, develop more articulate policy positions, and earn greater public trust. Conversely, parties that operate as the exclusive property of a small elite gradually atrophy, becoming hollow shells incapable of inspiring genuine public loyalty.
Consensus or Political Imposition? Drawing the Critical Line
It would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that there is something inherently wrong with consensus arrangements in every circumstance. In certain political environments, genuine consensus candidacy, freely negotiated among all interested parties, conducted with complete transparency, and voluntarily accepted by every aspirant involved, can represent a legitimate and even admirable exercise in cooperative democracy. History offers examples where rivals chose unity over contest in the genuine interest of their communities and broader democratic goals.
However, what routinely passes for consensus in many political systems today bears no resemblance to that noble ideal. The reality is far darker and far more calculated.
Aspirants are visited in the dead of night and pressured to withdraw their ambitions under veiled threats. Delegates are denied their voting rights and told that a decision has already been reached at a higher level. Decisions are taken in private hotel suites and exclusive meeting rooms by political godfathers whose authority derives not from any democratic mandate but from accumulated wealth and the leverage it purchases. These backroom agreements are then presented to the broader party membership as spontaneous expressions of collective unity.
That is not consensus. That is organized political coercion wearing the garments of democratic legitimacy.
