Consensus without consent: APC convention in focus

NIGERIA’S current democratic experiment seems to be an exercise in defiance of democratic norms and principles. It appears to be one exercise where learning from the mistakes of the past and from monitoring and evaluation seems to be lacking. The idea of democracy imports the notions of freedom of choice, one person one vote, liberty, decisions by the majority, the voluntariness of conduct and the absence of a countervailing power that puts individuals and groups under obligation at the pain of punishment in their choice of leaders. This exercise of arbitrariness under the guise of democracy in the emergence of leadership and candidates of political parties is epitomised in the word “consensus.” This discourse seeks to unravel the idea and mystery of the emergence of leadership by consensus and to properly articulate the meaning of consensus as a process of selecting the leadership of a political party or candidates to fly the flag of the party at an election.

The recently concluded party convention of the All Progressives Congress has stretched the meaning of the word consensus. By S.84 (9) of the Electoral Act 2022, the major requirement in achieving consensus is the need for the written consent of all cleared aspirants indicating their voluntary withdrawal from the race and their endorsement of the consensus candidate. By S.84 (10), where a party is unable to get the written consent of all the cleared aspirants to withdraw and support the consensus candidate, it shall revert to either direct or indirect primaries to elect its leadership or candidates.  By the same S.84 and in subsection (11), a special convention is to be held to ratify the consensus candidate. Synonyms for the word consensus include agreement, harmony, concord, like-mindedness, concurrence, consent, common consent, accord, unison, unity, unanimity, oneness, solidarity, concert,  general opinion/view,  majority opinion, common opinion. All these words likened to consensus abhor imposition and compulsion by external forces.

But what happened at Eagles Square in Abuja a couple of days ago and the sequence of events that preceded it did not show the voluntary nature in the withdrawal of aspirants. There was a “unity list” prepared by the powers of the party—the president and elected governors of the party. A unity list raises the posers as to the locus standi of the persons united in drawing up the list and what powers they have from the constitution of the party and the 1999 Constitution. They had no such powers.

First, the aspirants took months and spent huge resources traversing the country and appealing to their party members to choose them as leaders. Secondly, the aspirants had support within sections of the party and an election would have demonstrated the level of support for the aspirants. The third is that the process for consensus was not initiated by the aspirants but was forced down on them by the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.). The aspirants even rebuffed the idea of consensus but were compelled by a countervailing power to accept the imposition or suffer some harm, persecution or punishment. One may enquire about the nature of the harm they may suffer. It is all common knowledge that some of the aspirants have been either elected or appointed officials who mismanaged public finances and trust. Some of them even have pending cases in courts for corruption, refusing to accede to a presidential directive may lead to renewed vigour in investigation and prosecution by the anti-corruption agencies.

The letters stating the withdrawal of candidates for the chairmanship position came less than 24 hours to the election. In the case of six chairmanship candidates, they referred to the “appeal by Mr President for the chairmanship aspirants of our great party to agree to a consensus arrangement wherein our colleague H.E. Sen. Abdullahi Adamu is made our consensus candidate for the chairmanship position.” It was not about their voluntary withdrawal but obedience to higher authorities.  Aspiring APC youth leader, Dada Olusegun, was in tears as he cried and was visibly shaken when he was announcing his withdrawal. That could not have been a voluntary decision. Mary Eta, as an aspirant for the women leader, refused to step down for the unity list endorsed Betty Edu and even came on stage to refute that she had stepped down. Is this evidence of consensus or voluntariness in accepting a consensus arrangement?

The Electoral Act provision on the idea of emergence by consensus in democratic election law is a contradiction in terms. Democracy and elections are about contestation of ideas and the electorate being given the opportunity to choose between contesting ideas. Consensus as presently provided short circuits the process of choice and leaves the power of choice in the hands of a few.  The fact of different individuals offering to serve in the same position can be likened to the ongoing process of selecting Africa’s representatives at the World Cup. Virtually every African country wants to claim the ticket. To determine the representatives involves going into the field and the team that scores more goals within the allocated ninety minutes is declared the winner in accordance with the rules of the game.  Democracy like football has known and certain rules and it is essentially the process of appealing to the electorate and whoever gets the highest votes emerges as the winner.

Pray, which democrat is afraid of an election and would rather prefer an imposition. The argument that the result of aspirants submitting their fate to the electorate will bring rancour, division and disaffection within the party is unfounded. Rather, it will convince the losers that they have tried their best and, in as much as the voting process was free and fair, that they were rejected at the polls by the majority. This brings some form of consolation and closure after the race and losers can decide to learn from the campaign strategy of the winner.  On the contrary, the consensus arrangement seeks to suppress the rights of the aspirants who did not find favour with the anointing authorities. Consensus does not bring closure to unfavoured aspirants as they will still be in a position to think that they would have won but for the intervention of the godfathers of the party.

In a consensus arrangement, the qualities that would lead to the emergence or selection of the consensus candidate is not in the public domain. It is simply based on the whims and caprices of the godfathers and mothers of the party. It is not based on any empirical evidence which can be tested by the electorate. This is not the way of democracy and democratic consolidation. It is simply autocratic and dictatorial.

Finally, this discourse urges the political parties to desist from using the consensus arrangement especially in the choice of candidates for elections in 2023 as it will throw up candidates who will not be loyal or dedicated to the welfare of Nigerians. Consensus is about democracy in retreat.