Consensus Did More Harm Than Good in Nigeria. It’s What It Is

By Jikan waziri 

12 May, 2026

Nigeria’s democracy is founded on the idea that power belongs to the people. Yet in practice, political parties often bypass the people through “consensus.” On the surface, it looks like a peaceful way to avoid conflict. In reality, it has become a tool for a few party leaders to decide who gets power, without open competition or input from members. Under the current administration, this practice continues, and it is weakening both party democracy and public trust.

Consensus, in theory, means agreement after discussion. In Nigeria, it usually means that a small group meets behind closed doors, selects a candidate, and asks everyone else to accept it in the name of unity. There are no primaries, no debates, and no real choice. The result is a process that silences dissent and replaces merit with loyalty to power brokers.

The damage is visible across many states. In Katsina, for example, a so-called consensus process was used to remove sitting officeholders with proven records and replace them with the children of influential elites. The excuse was harmony and balance. The effect was to tell ordinary party members that family name matters more than service. Many lost interest, and the party entered the election weaker than it should have been.

The same pattern appeared elsewhere. In Gombe, consensus produced a governorship candidate but left key stakeholders alienated, forcing the party to manage internal disputes months after the decision. In Kebbi, anointed candidate emerged from elite agreement, sidelining aspirants with stronger grassroots support. The party’s structure was fractured, and reconciliation only came after the election.

In Oyo, the attempt to manage interests through consensus led to defections and loss of support in important constituencies. In Kano, both major parties relied on consensus to avoid contested primaries, but ended up with candidates whose legitimacy was questioned even within their own ranks. In Nasarawa, a shortlist was drawn up by a few stakeholders, ignoring aspirants who had built wide support. Legal battles followed, and the party’s focus shifted from campaigning to managing internal conflict.

These examples show that consensus rarely produces stability. Instead, it creates weak candidates, resentful members, and leaders who owe their loyalty upward to patrons rather than outward to voters. Governance suffers because the first task becomes managing internal discontent, not solving public problems.

If Nigeria wants stronger democracy, parties must return to open and transparent primaries. Elite negotiation has a role in coalition building after primaries, but it should not replace the right of members to choose. 

"Consensus did more harm than good in Nigeria. It’s what it is."

 Until parties allow real contests, elections will remain arrangements among elites, and citizens will remain spectators in their own democracy.

ANN Politics