How Consensus Politics Is Undermining Democracy in Nigeria

The growing use of consensus candidacy in Nigeria’s political system is drawing increasing criticism, with analysts warning that it may be weakening the country’s democratic foundations rather than strengthening party unity.

Originally intended to reduce the cost of primaries, prevent internal conflicts, and foster cohesion within political parties, consensus arrangements are now being accused of sidelining party members and concentrating power in the hands of a few influential figures.

Across major parties such as the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), consensus has become a common method for selecting candidates. While party leaders often justify it as a practical solution to disputes, critics argue that it has increasingly become a tool for imposing preferred candidates rather than reflecting genuine agreement.

The issue has gained prominence following provisions in the Electoral Act 2026, which eliminated indirect primaries and limited parties to either direct primaries or consensus. Under Section 84(9), aspirants must willingly consent in writing to any consensus arrangement; otherwise, parties are required to conduct direct primaries.

Despite this legal safeguard, tensions are rising as the 2026 primary season unfolds. In many states, consensus efforts are triggering disputes among aspirants unwilling to step aside.

In Ogun State, for instance, a disagreement over the Ogun East senatorial ticket exposed deep divisions. Senator Gbenga Daniel was reportedly barred from a party caucus meeting where Governor Dapo Abiodun emerged as the consensus candidate. A widely circulated video showed Daniel’s convoy denied access to the venue in Ijebu Ode, prompting him to reject the outcome as invalid.

Similar tensions are emerging in Lagos State, a key APC stronghold. Indications that Deputy Governor Obafemi Hamzat may be favoured as a consensus candidate have been met with resistance from other aspirants, including Abdul-Azeez Adediran, who is demanding an open primary.

In Nasarawa State, controversy has also erupted following Governor Abdullahi Sule’s endorsement of Senator Ahmed Wadada Aliyu as a consensus gubernatorial candidate without broad consultation. The move has been strongly opposed by former governor Umaru Tanko Al-Makura, highlighting growing internal resistance.

Political observers warn that such developments could erode public confidence in Nigeria’s electoral process. Seun Okeowo, a political analyst, noted that consensus is not inherently problematic if the law is strictly followed. However, he cautioned that failure to respect dissenting aspirants could spark crises across states.

Other experts argue that the current practice of consensus often lacks transparency and inclusiveness. According to analyst Jide Ojo, the concept itself is not undemocratic, but becomes problematic when it is used to impose candidates rather than reflect the collective will of party members.

Public policy expert Temitope Musowo also questioned the suitability of consensus in Nigeria’s political environment, warning that it may give undue advantage to certain aspirants while limiting broader participation.

Concerns extend beyond internal party dynamics. Analysts say that when candidate selection is driven by elite negotiations rather than open competition, merit, credibility, and public support may be sidelined. This, they argue, risks producing leaders who are more accountable to political power brokers than to citizens.

Sam Amadi, director of the Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts, emphasized that democracy must begin within political parties, warning that compromised internal processes weaken the legitimacy of the broader system.

For many young Nigerians and first-time participants, the dominance of consensus politics is deepening feelings of exclusion. Limited access to competitive primaries reduces opportunities for new entrants and reinforces the influence of established political figures.

Ironically, a system designed to promote unity is often achieving the opposite. Analysts note that imposed consensus frequently leads to resentment, defections, and internal disputes rather than cohesion.

“Rather than resolving conflicts, imposed consensus can deepen divisions,” said Cheta Nwanze of SBM Intelligence. “When stakeholders feel excluded, they are more likely to challenge outcomes or withdraw support.”