Connect with us

Opinion

APC’s politics of consensus

Published

on

APC

A political commentary warns that elite-driven consensus practices in Nigeria may undermine democratic elections and weaken voter legitimacy

By Lasisi Olagunju

In a democracy, victory won through real elections brings enduring legitimacy. ‘On Your Mandate We Shall Stand’ was composed and sung for Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola because he submitted his ambition to a competitive process: he had a competent opponent, votes were cast, counted, and he won.

Advertisement

Also read: EPL: Title Prediction Updated After Man City, Everton Share Dramatic Draw

The song, its defiance, and resilience followed that mandate because it was legitimate.

Those who chant similar slogans today may find themselves clutching empty matchboxes tomorrow if they continue to sidestep competitive elections.

A democratic seat secured through elite manipulation and backroom agreement cannot command enduring popular support, especially when those same elites decide to take it back.

Advertisement

Nigeria today stands in the grip of what is called consensus politics; choosing candidates without the ‘trouble’ of voting. We are even scheming to elect a president next year without the inconvenience of election. Good luck to all of us.

At the Battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066, the Norman king, William the Conqueror, defeated King Harold II and went on to become King of England.

Historians note that the victory set off sweeping changes across the British Isles. They say by force of arms, William took the crown and went on to remake the Church, the palace, and the culture of England.

Advertisement

They say he did more than change the English crown; his victory remade the English language through a deep infusion of Norman/Latin forms. The consequence is that more than 60 percent of English words now carry Latin parentage.

One such word is ‘consensus’, from the Latin ‘consentīre’—“to feel together”,
“to agree,” “to be in harmony,” “to concur.”

The rains started beating that word a long time ago. Language historians note that words which experienced long migration often shed their original sense of shared feeling and acquire more instrumental meanings. So it is with ‘consensus’ in today’s political usage.

Advertisement

Somewhere along its long journey from Latin to modern political speech, ‘consensus’ lost its warmth. The distortion of the word and its meaning is no longer abstract.

In our usage today, ‘consensus’ no longer suggests a meeting of minds; it often signals a decision already made; an outcome proclaimed from above and affirmed below.

A word that once implied a genuine convergence of minds now describes an order from the throne, delivered through courtiers.

Advertisement

The parties—especially the ruling APC—have stretched and inverted the meaning of the word. In APC’s political dictionary, “consensus” increasingly reads as the will of the president, not the outcome of deliberation.

As we had it in Sani Abacha’s transition programme, we think any of today’s living parties that make it limping to the ballot in January 2027 should reach an ‘agreement’ and adopt one person as the consensus presidential candidate. That is how rich our imaginative thoughts are and how limitless our capacity for distortion of values is.

Within both party and polity, the president now embodies what Aristide R. Zolberg calls “the chief executive who is also the supreme legislator (the chief elector), and the ultimate arbiter of conflict.” Because the president is what he has always been, photo ops are staged as proof of order, while his name, cast as the final authority in the APC’s doctrine of “consensus”, is invoked to sanctify outcomes.

Advertisement

The APC set its neighbour’s hut on fire and rejoiced; now the blaze has caught its own roof. Across the states, the refrain is the same: the abuse of ‘consensus,’ with the president inserted into the process as decider-in-chief.

Oyo State offers a very sharp illustration. Some APC leaders, on Friday, announced Senator Sharafadeen Alli as the party’s “consensus” governorship candidate, invoking the president’s name. Within hours, former minister, Adebayo Adelabu, pushed back, also invoking the same presidency, and declaring that he remained in the race as the president’s “son”.

When two rival claims lean on the same authority, what is presented as consensus begins to look like a contest of endorsements, not agreement.

Advertisement

Our fathers say the medicine must match the disease. Bí àrùn búburú bá wòlú, oògùn búburú la fi ńwò ó (When the affliction is severe, the remedy cannot be gentle).

That may explain why the rhetoric of resistance has turned harsh. One does not need a keen ear to catch the crudity in what now issues from Oyo APC bigwigs. It is a stream of curses and abuse, imprecations without restraint. And one must ask: why?

Beyond Oyo, across Nigeria, north to south, we hear cries of plots to impose “consensus” candidates. How do you use the words ‘imposition’ and ‘consensus’ in the same sentence? Imposition comes from above; the other grows from below. ‘Imposition’ is force without consent. ‘Consensus’ is agreement without force. The two opposites appearing as companions presents a contradiction, and politics is autological, a self-defining oxymoron. You will likely agree with my linguistic choice if you believe the popular (but etymologically false joke) that “politics” comes from ‘poly’ (many) and ‘tics’ (blood-sucking parasites).

Advertisement

In Nasarawa, former Inspector-General of Police and APC governorship aspirant, Mohammed Adamu Abubakar, rejected any move towards “consensus,” insisting that only a direct primary could confer legitimacy.

To him and others in the race, what is being dressed up as consensus is little more than unilateralism in softer language.

In Ondo, there are subdued objections to what the party may decide on Ondo South senatorial ticket. Aspirants for the Ondo East/Ondo West federal constituency have raised similar alarms, accusing party leaders of plotting to impose a candidate under the convenient cover of consensus.

Advertisement

Their warning is simple: once choice is managed from above, internal democracy is already compromised.

In Yobe State, Senator Ibrahim Mohammed Bomai, Kashim Musa Tumsah, and Usman Alkali Baba—three APC governorship aspirants—have rejected the party’s endorsement of former Secretary to the State Government, Alhaji Baba Malam Wali, as its “consensus” candidate for the 2027 election.

Bomai’s choice of words is telling. He described the “consensus” imposition as an affront to democratic principles. He warned against the steady replacement of popular choice with elite arrangement.

Advertisement

No individual, he argued, regardless of past office or political influence, has the authority to determine the leadership of millions behind closed doors.

Leadership, he insisted, must emerge through a process that is free, fair, and transparent—not one brokered in the name of “consensus.” Quoting him directly, he said: “We categorically reject this attempt to subvert due process. We reject the culture of imposition. We reject any scheme that undermines fairness, equity, and the democratic rights of our people.” Those words give voice to what dissatisfied but muted APC leaders and members in Kwara, Ogun and beyond are saying in uneasy, even fearful, silence.

Lagos, for now, appears to be the exception. The emergence of Dr Obafemi Hamzat as the APC governorship candidate quietly followed a process that bore the marks of consultation rather than imposition.

Advertisement

Hamzat combines the fine qualities of a gentleman with humble erudition. In a field without a formidable opposition, his path to final victory looks smooth. Congratulations may therefore be in order.

Choice of candidates by consensus is good, cheap and safe if it comes with clean hands. Going far back into our beginning, we find that real consensus is not alien to the African political tradition.

Ghanaian philosopher Kwasi Wiredu (1931 – 2022), in his reflections on ‘Democracy and Consensus in African Traditional Politics’, argues that decision-making in pre-colonial African societies was anchored in discussion and agreement rather than imposition.

Advertisement

He draws, for instance, on the words of Zambia’s founding father, Kenneth Kaunda, who observed that “in our original societies, we operated by consensus. An issue was talked out in solemn conclave until such time as agreement could be achieved.” Similarly, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, in 1961, noted that “the African concept of democracy is similar to that of the ancient Greeks, from whose language the word ‘democracy’ originated. To the Greeks, democracy meant simply “government by discussion among equals.” The people discussed, and when they reached an agreement, the result was a “people’s decision.” In African society, he said, the traditional method of conducting affairs is “by free discussion… the elders sit under the big trees and talk until they agree.”

Our politics has refused to benefit from that past of refined due process. There is no “people” in today’s decisions. And we expect today’s “consensus” arrangement to yield good governance.

No. It will not. It can only produce a system that answers to kings, kingmakers, and the capos who guard their power.

Advertisement

When a ruling party actively promotes “consensus” after weakening the opposition, it risks sliding toward a very bad form of authoritarianism.

It also strips even its own members of the power to choose their candidates. As Kwasi Wiredu observed, both Kenneth Kaunda and Julius Nyerere defended systems that claimed consensus but, in practice, narrowed choice.

The Yoruba, watching what has become of this democracy in the hands of its custodians, would say: when a wise man cooks yams in a mad fashion, the discerning take theirs with sticks. That is àbọ̀ ọ̀rọ̀—half a word—and for the wise, it is enough.

Advertisement

What passes for consensus in Nigeria today therefore demands closer scrutiny.

When outcomes are settled before conversations begin, when dissent is managed rather than engaged, and when unanimity is announced rather than negotiated, consensus ceases to be the product of dialogue; it becomes instead an instrument of control.

“Fair is foul, and foul is fair.” In politics, as William Shakespeare suggests, opposites often blur; good and evil do not always stand apart; they, in fact, reinforce each other. Bernard Crick, in ‘In Defence of Politics’ (1962), reminds us that politics thrives on contradiction, that it is “a creative compromise… a diverse unity.”

Advertisement

All dictionaries insist that “consensus” and ‘coercion’ are not the same. Our politicians, however, behave as though they are—indeed, as though one can be made to pass for the other.

Once coercion learns to speak the language of consensus, it no longer needs to persuade; it only needs to declare. And declarations are fast, sweet and cheap.

But there are consequences.

Advertisement

Someone said “every cheap choice is a lost chance at joy.” The quest for easy victory is behind the current ‘consensus’ frenzy. But it may be the death of this democracy.

In Yoruba, some proverbs come as stories. Take this: “All the animals in the forest assembled and decided to make ìkokò (hyena) their asípa (secretary). Ikoko was happy to hear the news, but a short while later he burst into tears. Asked what the matter was, he replied that he was sad because he realised that perhaps they (his electors) might revisit the matter and reverse themselves.”

Professor Oyekan Owomoyela, from whom I got the proverb, explains what it says: “even in times of good fortune one should be mindful of the possibility of reversal.”

Advertisement

Also read: Osimhen Warned After Costly Error in Galatasaray Title Race Setback

The moral is that those who donate victory cheaply through agreement can agree again to whimsically annul the victory without consequences.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Nigeria at 66: Taking stock and doing the needful…

Published

on

Nigeria

By Bola BOLAWOLE,

 

Advertisement

Thursday, Ist October, 2026, Nigeria celebrates its 66th anniversary. Is there anything at all to celebrate? I know opinion will be sharply divided on this score.

Also read: NFF Appeals CAF Ruling on Edo Queens’ WAFU-B Victory

There are those who will say there is nothing really to celebrate while others will say comme ci, comme ca! Neither good nor bad.

There is still cause for cheers all the same, yet some will say. It can be better, but we should be careful not to throw the baby away with the bath water.

Advertisement

In other words, we should appreciate whatever progress has been made while pointing the way forward. Sixty-six years may be a long period in the life of a person but it is like the very first step taken, as the Chinese would say, in a journey of 1000 years.

A better way to understand this is to note that there are countries/civilizations that have existed even before the birth of Jesus Christ!

Some of the oldest civilizations/countries in the world are said to be Iran, Egypt, Vietnam, Armenia, China, India, Georgia, Ethiopia, Greece, Japan, San Marino, France, Bulgaria, Nepal, Portugal, Mongolia, Thailand, Andorra, Switzerland, and Spain.

Advertisement

Note that except for Egypt, no other African civilization/country is mentioned in the list, but we shall soon return to that.

Iran’s civilisation is traced to c.3200 BCE; Egypt, c. 3100 BCE; Vietnam, c. 2879 BCE; China, c. 2070 BCE; India, c. 2000 BCE; and so on and so forth.

Does it then mean that there are no ancient civilizations in Africa that measure up to those mentioned above? How about our ancient empires and kingdoms – Mali empire, Songhai empire; Kush, Azom, and Zimbabwe, among others? A unique feature of the European, Asian and Arabic countries mentioned above is that colonialism and/or military conquest notwithstanding, they have stoutly maintained their distinct cultural identities.

Advertisement

Thank God for archeology: The Iho Eleru (formerly Iwo Eleru) rock shelter in Isarun near Akure, the Ondo state capital, has yielded the oldest known human fossil remains in West Africa, dating back approximately 13,000 years.

What this indicates is that there has been human life in that area for a much longer period than is recorded for some of the so-called oldest countries or civilizations of the world.

The various bronze heads of Ife and Benin, for instance, showed the superior technological development of our fore-fathers, at some point, compared to Europe and other parts of the world.

Advertisement

How come, then, that none of our ancient cities and civilizations are mentioned in the league of Iran, China, Japan, etc.?

The simple reason could be that colonialism erased our pre-colonial history, achievements and identities.

Any student of History at the then University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University), Ile-Ife), who studied at the feet of Dr. Ishola Olomola (as he then was), whom some of us nicknamed “Tekrur” because of the way he produced the name, must have answered the question “Africa has no history: Discuss.”

Advertisement

To them, our history – and existence – started with the coming of the colonialists and their “discovery” of our existence! Thus, it was Mungo Park who “discovered” the River Niger, notwithstanding that he was led to the river by locals (natives) who had lived side-by-side the river for God-knows-when! On our part, we acquiesced in the erasure and have not only carried it forward but have also deepened it.

Africans were not the only people subjected to colonial rule or slavery, but while others struggled to maintain their cultural identities, we were just too glad to abandon ours and swallow what the colonizers imposed on us hook-line-and-sinker.

For those who may not know, the Indians, like us in Nigeria, were also colonized by Britain; so also what is today called Pakistan and Bangladesh. Parts of China were at some point colonized by Japan; so also the Korean peninsula (known today as North Korea and South Korea).

Advertisement

While those countries threw away the yoke of colonialism, maintained their cultural identities and retraced their history back to pre-colonial days, those of us in Africa have chosen to forgo our pre-colonial history and identities. Gone are our indigenous language, religion, mode of dressing, culture, ways of life, customs, traditions and beliefs. We are happy – in fact, the mark of civilization is when we ape the colonizers and distance ourselves from our roots.

But we should have asked ourselves: Why is it that foreign countries, including ex-colonies like us, teach their children in their own language while we abandon ours and learn instead in the foreign language imposed on us by our erstwhile colonial masters? Those of us who travel abroad for studies must first learn their own language.

Is it true that the original idea behind the founding of the then University of Ife by the Obafemi Awolowo government of the Western Region was to conduct learning in the Yoruba language, hence the Motto: For Learning and Culture? But the military struck in 1966 and the rest, as they say, is history! Why have we abandoned our own religion and belief systems for those of foreigners who still keep theirs? Why do we despise everything that is ours but embrace what is theirs, even when it is clear to us that it is not working, and cannot work for us?

Advertisement

When we say Nigeria is 66 years old, it does not mean that the various nations and people making up Nigeria are 66 years old.

The Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, Bini, Jukun, Kanuri, etc are hundreds, if not thousands of years old. They have also created civilizations that, at their apogee, compared to, even surpassed, anyone mentioned above.

When the Lugardian Experiment of 1914, as it is derisively called by those opposed to it, is abandoned, then the various ethnic nationalities making up Nigeria will be free to retrace their history back beyond 1914 to an era that compares favourably with those mentioned above. The contraption called Nigeria is, thus, a prison of sorts and an eraser of history.

Advertisement

Nigeria may be 66 years old but the Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa, Bini, Jukun, Igala, Ijaw, Idoma, and many others are certainly not. They are thousands of years older than Nigeria.

And therein lies a fundamental problem: When we say 66 years are but like the twinkle of an eye in the life of a nation, which nation are we referring to? Is it the various nationalities that make up Nigeria? Ahmadu Bello reportedly referred to Nigeria as the “mistake of 1914.” In his book, Path to Nigerian Freedom (1947), Obafemi Awolowo referred to the same Nigeria as “a mere geographical expression.” One Hundred and Twelve (112) years after the amalgamation, has Nigeria stopped being a mistake or a mere geographical expression? Even those who publicly profess their love for Nigeria, are they more than Nnamdi Azikiwe who prefer to live for Nigeria rather than die for it? “Why die for Nigeria when you can live for Nigeria”, Zik was quoted as saying!

In the Olympics, World cup, UEFA and European League competitions, big and small nations compete as sovereign nations. Countries not as big as my native Ondo state compete as nations. Then I wonder why a similar thing cannot happen here.

Advertisement

Why shouldn’t the Yoruba have their own nation or country? Why shouldn’t the Igbo have their dream Biafra? Why shouldn’t any other nationality in today’s Nigeria that wants to break away do so and form their own country? Why must we continue to force strange bedfellows to cohabit with bad blood flowing endlessly in their veins?

In the United Kingdom as we speak, the three other components of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are itching to go their separate ways.

Scotland has twice failed (in 1979 and 2014) to meet the threshold in the referendum for independence; still, its leaders are making another move.

Advertisement

In Spain, Catalonia’s independence movement has not relented. In 2017, it caused a constitutional crisis that nearly forced Spain on its knees.

The Soviet Union behemoth broke into 15 independent countries in December 1991. That break has not prevented Russia, the largest rump of the erstwhile USSR, from retaining its status as a superpower-nation.

Comrade-President Jozip Broz Tito’s much-beloved Yugoslavia fought a decade-long and bitter civil war (1991 – 2000) before splitting into six or seven independent countries. In contrast, Czechoslovakia’s “velvet divorce” led to the Czechs and Slovakians peacefully going their separate ways on January 1, 1993.

Advertisement

The “divorce” that separated Singapore and Malaysia was not as pleasant.

Malaysia considered Singapore a drag on its economic and political development and expelled it from the federation on August 9, 1965; similar to what Major Gideon Orkar and his fellow coupists wanted to do to some states in the North of the country with their failed coup of April 22, 1990. Singaporean leaders wept after their expulsion.

Many thought the end had come for the small, arid and resource-less island. But Singapore’s leaders, led by the iconic Lee Kuan Yew, pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and, today, Singapore is one of the most prosperous countries in the world, with its GPD surpassing even that of Malaysia. Singapore’s GDP is $659.57 billion while that of Malaysia is $516.4 billion

Advertisement

Let those advocating for the restructuring of Nigeria on the account that the North of this country which, today, is considered a drag on the country, will suffer, take note of this.

I advocate for restructuring because I believe it can prove the elusive solution to Nigeria’s problem as it will compel everyone to buckle up and work, putting an end to the present system of monkey dey work, baboon dey chop.

With both monkey and baboon rolling up their sleeves and sweating it out – as was the case with Malaysia and Singapore – what a win-win solution that will be!

Advertisement

The alternative to a peaceful resolution of the Nigerian quagmire could be another civil war – God forbid! The experience of the civil war of 1967 – 1970 is there to warn us.

If that is not fresh enough, we have seen Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Sudan, Ethiopia/Eritrea and, of course, Kosovo.

Many of the independent countries mentioned above are not half as big or richly-endowed as the nationalities fighting for their own independent status here in Nigeria – such as Biafra and Oodua.

Advertisement

Seperation has helped India and Pakistan to both become nuclear-power nations.

The experience of other countries that parted ways in Europe also points to the fact that separation may not necessarily be a bad idea afterall.

It can even prove the catalyst that we need for the rapid socio-economic development that has eluded us for 66 years.

Advertisement

Also read: NFF Appeals CAF Ruling on Edo Queens’ WAFU-B Victory

While wishing Nigerians happy celebrations, let us also serve a note of warning that a stitch in time saves nine!

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending