Why Party Primaries Remain the Weakest Link in Nigeria’s Democracy

Democracy does not begin on election day. It begins much earlier, inside political parties, when candidates are selected for the offices citizens will later be asked to vote for. Yet, this critical stage remains largely closed to the ordinary people whose lives will be affected by the outcome.By the time Nigerians arrive at polling units, most of the important decisions have already been made. Party leaders, political financiers, governors and influential power brokers have reduced the choices to a small group of candidates. Citizens are then asked to choose from a list they did not help to produce.This is one of the deepest weaknesses in Nigeria’s democracy. Elections may give citizens the right to select among candidates, but party primaries determine which candidates are available for selection. When the primary process is captured, the general election becomes a choice between decisions already made by powerful people.Choosing Between Two Bad OptionsMany Nigerians have found themselves in elections where none of the leading candidates represents their hopes, values or expectations. They are told to vote for the “lesser evil", not because that person is suitable for office, but because the alternative appears worse. Democracy is gradually emptied of meaning when citizens vote only to prevent a more dangerous candidate from winning.This problem is not simply about the quality of individual politicians. It comes from a political recruitment system that does not consistently reward competence, public service, integrity or ideas. Instead, it often rewards access to money, loyalty to powerful individuals and membership of influential political networks.The result is that credible people may never reach the ballot. A competent teacher, doctor, entrepreneur, civil servant, activist or community leader may have public support but lack the money and political connections required to survive a party primary. Meanwhile, an aspirant backed by a governor, former governor or wealthy financier may secure the ticket without building any meaningful relationship with the people.When citizens repeatedly face these restricted choices, some eventually lose interest in the electoral process. Nigeria’s 2023 presidential election recorded a turnout of about 27 per cent, the lowest since the country returned to civilian rule in 1999. Many factors contributed to that decline, but a political system that offers voters candidates they did not meaningfully help to select cannot be separated from the crisis of participation.The Candidate Who Owes the GodfatherThe person who finances or secures a politician’s emergence rarely does so without expectations. Once the candidate wins, the first obligation may not be to the electorate but to the individual or group that paid for nomination forms, controlled the party structure, influenced the primary or funded the election. Public office then becomes a repayment arrangement.This is where godfatherism becomes more than a disagreement within a political party. It becomes a threat to governance because the elected official enters office carrying political debts that may be settled with appointments, contracts, access to public funds or control over government decisions. The interests of the political sponsor begin to compete directly with the interests of the public.A governor produced through such a system may hesitate to investigate the administration of a former governor who helped install him. A legislator may refuse to challenge an executive whose political machinery secured the party ticket. A local government chairman may obey the party leader who selected him even when those instructions conflict with the needs of the community.In these situations, loyalty to the political benefactor becomes more important than loyalty to the Constitution or the citizens. Leaders may know what the public wants and still refuse to act because doing so could offend the person who controls the party structure. Nigeria has repeatedly seen political conflicts in which the central question is not whether a policy benefits the people, but whether an elected official is still “loyal” to the individual who helped bring him into office.Democracy Cannot Grow Inside Undemocratic PartiesPolitical parties are supposed to be democratic institutions. They should provide spaces where citizens organise around ideas, debate policies, recruit leaders and compete fairly for nominations. But many Nigerian parties operate mainly as vehicles for acquiring power.Their ideological differences are often weak, their membership structures are poorly developed and their internal decision-making remains concentrated in a few hands. This is why politicians can move from one party to another without any serious change in their beliefs or programmes. The important consideration is often where the ticket is available, not which platform best represents their political convictions.Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2026 now provides that candidates should emerge through direct primaries or consensus. It also requires parties to maintain digital membership registers and states that only members whose names appear in the submitted register may vote or be voted for during party primaries and conventions. These provisions could widen participation, but their value will depend on whether party membership registers are transparent and whether direct primaries are conducted honestly.Direct primaries can move power away from a small group of delegates by allowing registered party members to participate at the ward level. But they will not improve democracy if membership lists are manipulated, genuine members are excluded or results are written elsewhere. A process does not become democratic merely because a party describes it as direct.Consensus also carries serious risks. Under the 2026 law, a consensus candidate should have the written consent of all cleared aspirants, and a party that cannot secure that consent must return to direct primaries. Yet political pressure, inducements and unequal power within parties can turn what is presented as agreement into an organised endorsement of the candidate preferred by powerful leaders.Voter Apathy Begins Before Election DayVoter apathy is usually discussed as though Nigerians simply do not care about democracy. That explanation is incomplete. Many citizens care deeply about how they are governed, but they do not always believe the political process will translate their participation into better leadership.A citizen who has watched competent aspirants pushed aside during party primaries may see little reason to queue for hours during the general election. Another may believe that voting only helps to legitimise a contest between candidates sponsored by rival political elites. Their withdrawal may be damaging to democracy, but it is often rooted in frustration rather than ignorance.The danger is that low participation strengthens the same political structures that caused the frustration. When credible citizens withdraw, organised party machines, patronage networks and vote-buying structures become more influential. A small, mobilised political network can then determine the future of millions of people who have lost confidence in the process.Nigeria must therefore address voter apathy from the beginning of the electoral chain. It is not enough to ask citizens to collect their voter cards and participate on election day. They must also be encouraged to join political parties, attend ward meetings, monitor membership registers, question aspirants and participate in candidate selection.Reform Must Start Inside the PartiesThe reform of Nigeria’s democracy must go beyond improving voting technology and the transmission of election results. These are important, but a transparent general election cannot fully correct a fraudulent primary. Technology may accurately record which candidate citizens selected, but it cannot improve the poor choices placed before them.Political parties must publish credible membership registers before primaries and establish clear procedures through which members can challenge wrongful exclusion. Primary results should be released at every level, with the number of accredited members, votes received by each aspirant and reports from electoral monitors made accessible to the public.The cost of seeking political office must also be reduced. Excessive nomination fees and the enormous cost of mobilising party structures discourage people without wealthy sponsors. When only the rich or those supported by the rich can compete, democracy becomes an auction in which public office goes to those with the strongest financial networks.Civil society organisations and the media must give party primaries the same attention they give general elections. Journalists should investigate the financing of aspirants, the credibility of membership registers and the influence of governors and political financiers. Citizens deserve to know who produced a candidate, who paid for the campaign and what interests may be waiting to be protected after victory.Giving Citizens a Real ChoiceNigeria cannot build accountable leadership from a candidate-selection process controlled by a few individuals. A politician who owes his emergence entirely to a godfather will struggle to become an independent servant of the people. Even where the person has good intentions, the structure that produced him creates obligations that can weaken public accountability.The purpose of democracy is not merely to allow people to cast ballots. It is to give them a meaningful role in deciding who governs them and under what conditions. That promise remains incomplete when citizens are invited only at the final stage, after political elites have already determined the available choices.Until party primaries become transparent, competitive and open to genuine participation, Nigeria’s elections will continue to produce leaders who are closer to their sponsors than to the people. Citizens will continue to be asked to choose between two bad options, while competent candidates remain outside the ballot. And voter apathy will continue to grow, not because Nigerians have rejected democracy, but because the political parties have denied them a democracy worth participating in.