By Emmanuel Oladesu
In politics, like in other human endeavours, prevailing circumstances dictate the direction to take. A regiment does not go to battle without a strategy and the likelihood of rejigs. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is not alien to power, having displaced the erstwhile ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2015 general election and retaining the position. In previous elections, the party had adopted various methods to elect its candidates.
Ahead of next year’s general election, the party has adopted the consensus and direct primary. Can the two modes of primary now be trusted to produce candidates through a transparent, credible and democratic process?
Like before, the two options are on the weighing scale. But unlike before, there is an improvement. The polity is re-evolving. The intra-party system of choice appears to be regenerating itself. Through fine-tuning, remodification or redesigning, the two modes of shadow polls could be better, with the political class and ordinary party members also making progressive adjustments to the reality.
In many states, party chapters embraced consensus completely, thereby eliminating the hurdles associated with direct primary, and the strife, antagonism, division, anxiety, and tension unleashed by stiff contest.
But consensus does not really make the internal succession process a walkover, really, for the consensus candidate. The process involves a lot to consultations, brainstorming, consideration of many factors, invocation of the party’s supremacy and discipline, collective agreement, sacrifice and reconciliation.
A beneficiary emerges, no doubt, but after going all these complex processes of consensus-building, the party would wax stronger ahead of the general election.
The beauty of consensus is that other aspirants who step down may not be forgotten or left in the cold after the polls. Discussions extend to the accommodation of their interests in power sharing or distribution of position and other largesse. It is bad if these agreements are not honoured after the inauguration of the government.
Consensus is always from the top and not from the bottom. It demonstrates the primacy of those who think for the party, those who mean well for the platform, and those who are eager to avert the likely hijack of the ticket by moneybags who may not really share the ideology and vision of the party.
When consensus was in vogue in an early dispensation, ideological parties set the criteria of good conduct, sound education, previous working experience, sacrifice, contributions to the community and the party, seniority and loyalty to the platform as conditions for eligibility of candidates. The economic status of contenders was secondary. In many instances, when a consensus candidate is presented to the party for ratification by party members, he is without blemish or baggage.
Party members defer to elders and the youth, who are groomed for future leadership, learn the ropes within the party’s organisational structure.
But in the dynamic polity, where change is the most constant thing, the consensus option was repudiated because of allegations of imposition. Although it is within the ambit of democratic practice, the mode could not meet the expectations of moneybags who relied on money to buy the tickets since the days of the ill-fated Third Republic.
This pattern of consensus-building is slightly different from “consensus concessions” given to defectors, including popular governors and lawmakers who cross over from their parties to others to add value and alter geopolitical calculations in the states.
Consensus also has a spectrum. In analysing the range, the feature of consensus runs into the features of direct primary. In a situation where consensus initiators and drivers are able to garner over 90 per cent support for the initiative or proposal, the remaining 10 per cent can still kick and insist on direct primary. This does not really alter the consensus. At this stage, the party settles for a comparatively easier direct primary where the majority conveniently wins without depriving the minority the chance to have its say.
Also, in states where direct primary is adopted, following the rejection of consensus, attention shifts from the political party to the aspirants, backed by their adversarial supporters in the party, especially those who fuel the rivalry, acrimony and division.
Definitely, a direct primary is more demanding and costlier. A lot of logistics may be involved in the implementation. It also has to be better organised and effectively managed to prevent a post-primary crisis, distrust and the collapse of confidence, all of which may affect the preparations for the general election.
But there is the exercise of freedom by individual aspirants to contest; to test their worth and popularity, and for an aspirant who has a genuine plan to actually fight his way through. This is accomplished through his structure, power of negotiation and persuasion, skills, and financial commitments.
The party is momentarily divided, and may so remain, in the absence of a strong party leadership. The winner attributes victory to himself and his group within the party and may even see himself as superior to the party.
But where a direct primary is effectively managed, there is a sense of wider participation, with party members seemingly taking ownership of the process.
Backed by law, the consensus and direct primary methods are no more on trial. Neither of the two is superior or better than the other. They now take the shine off the discredited indirect or delegate system that is characterised by excessive tyranny, monetisation, camping of delegates by governors or the highest bidders, coercion and intimidation of statutory delegates, and colossal oppression.
