2027: WHY CONSENSUS MAY DECIDE MORE PARTY TICKETS THAN BALLOTS
Anthony EKPO BASSEY
Across the major parties, there is mounting fear that open primary contests could trigger internal crises capable of weakening their chances before the general elections. As a result, party leaders are already quietly promoting consensus candidacies as the safest route to preserving unity.
Recently, stakeholders in several states have been holding consultations aimed at producing “acceptable candidates” ahead of the next round of party primaries. For many political leaders, the attraction to consensus is simple. It reduces tension. It cuts costs. It prevents prolonged legal battles. Most importantly, it helps parties avoid the bitterness that often follows fiercely contested primaries.
In recent election cycles, many political parties lost strategic positions not because they were unpopular among voters, but because internal disputes after primaries destroyed their structures. Parallel congresses, disputed delegate lists and endless court cases weakened parties long before election day. In other words, to party leaders, consensus offers stability.
Moreover, supporters of the system argue that where aspirants voluntarily agree to step down for one candidate, the party emerges stronger and more united. They also insist that expensive primary elections drain party resources and create avoidable enemies within the system. In a country where political campaigns consume enormous amounts of money, consensus is increasingly being viewed as practical politics. However, not everyone agrees. Far from it.
Besides, critics argue that what politicians describe as consensus is often nothing more than carefully packaged imposition. According to them, powerful governors, influential godfathers and party executives frequently manipulate the process to install loyal candidates while shutting out genuine competition. The result is usually predictable. Anger! Defections! Rebellion!
Indeed, some of the biggest political upsets in recent years emerged from controversial consensus arrangements that alienated strong party members and divided structures from within. Opponents insist that democracy loses credibility when party delegates are denied the opportunity to freely choose among aspirants. They warn that excessive dependence on consensus weakens internal democracy and discourages capable politicians who may lack powerful backers.
Also, there is the issue of transparency. Who truly chooses the consensus candidate? Were all aspirants consulted? Did everyone willingly agree? Or were some pressured into stepping down? These questions continue to trail almost every consensus arrangement in the country’s political space.
Although the Electoral Act recognises consensus candidacy, it clearly requires the written consent of all aspirants involved. Once an aspirant rejects the arrangement, parties are expected to conduct either direct or indirect primaries. Yet, politics is rarely that straightforward. Pressure meetings, late-night negotiations, promises of appointments, political intimidation and others. These realities often shape outcomes long before delegates arrive at any primary venue.
As the road to 2027 gradually unfolds, the battle over consensus primaries may become one of the defining internal struggles within Nigeria’s political parties. For party leaders, consensus may remain the quickest path to unity and survival. On the other hand, for critics, it may become the fastest route to resentment and internal collapse.
