The High Cost of Imposition
Kayode Suleiman argues that
democracy thrives in an atmosphere where political choices are made freely
The growing tension within the Surulere chapter of the ruling All Progressives Congress over alleged intimidation, coercion and attempts to impose a preferred aspirant ahead of the Lagos State House of Assembly primaries once again exposes one of the biggest threats to Nigeria’s democratic culture — candidate imposition.
Although the allegations against party leaders in Surulere remain unverified and the party leadership has yet to officially respond, the controversy has already triggered wider conversations about internal democracy, abuse of political structures and the long-term consequences of denying party members a free and fair contest.
At the heart of the dispute are claims that some influential political actors had allegedly settled for a preferred aspirant long before the primaries, while allegedly mobilising party structures, empowerment programmes and political patronage to force support for that choice.
For many observers, the crisis goes beyond Surulere. It reflects a recurring pattern within Nigerian political parties where power blocs, political godfathers and influential office holders often determine candidates before delegates or party members cast their votes.
One of the strongest pillars of democracy is competition. Political parties are expected to provide platforms where aspirants can freely test their popularity, competence and acceptability before party members.
Once party leaders begin to dictate outcomes or intimidate members into supporting a preferred candidate, the credibility of the process immediately comes into question.
The allegations from Surulere suggest that some party executives and grassroots members allegedly felt pressured to align with a predetermined political direction.
If true, such developments could weaken trust in the primary election process and discourage participation by ordinary party members.
Internal democracy is not merely a procedural requirement; it is essential for party stability and legitimacy.
When aspirants believe that outcomes are already decided before primaries are conducted, contests become symbolic exercises rather than genuine democratic processes.
This is often the beginning of deeper political crises.
Across Nigeria, several political disputes that later degenerated into defections, litigation and anti-party activities frequently started with allegations of imposition during party primaries.
Aggrieved aspirants who feel cheated often withdraw their loyalty, sponsor internal rebellion or quietly work against their own party during general elections.
Perhaps more disturbing are allegations that some party appointees and members were allegedly threatened with loss of appointments if they failed to support the preferred aspirant.
Even though these claims remain unproven, such allegations raise serious concerns about the weaponisation of political appointments and state influence within party contests.
Democracy thrives in an atmosphere where political choices are made freely, not under fear or intimidation. The moment appointments, empowerment schemes or political patronage become tools for coercion, political participation ceases to be voluntary.
The implication is dangerous.
Party members may publicly endorse candidates they privately do not support simply to protect their positions or political survival.
This creates artificial popularity around aspirants and suppresses honest political engagement.
Over time, this culture produces weak democratic institutions where loyalty to powerful individuals becomes more important than competence, ideas or public service.
Political parties across the world adopt consensus arrangements from time to time. Consensus itself is not illegal or undemocratic if it emerges through broad consultation, negotiation and voluntary agreement among aspirants and stakeholders.
The problem begins when “consensus” becomes a euphemism for exclusion or force.
The controversy in Surulere highlights this delicate distinction. Some stakeholders insist there was no genuine consensus process and that support structures had allegedly been directed to work for one aspirant before other contestants were given equal opportunities.
Where aspirants are pressured to step down or where delegates fear punishment for independent choices, consensus loses its democratic legitimacy.
For any political party, especially one that prides itself as progressive, the integrity of the process is often more important than the eventual winner.
A transparent primary election where contestants freely compete is more likely to produce unity after the contest than a process perceived as manipulated from the beginning.
Another danger of candidate imposition is grassroots disillusionment. Political parties survive largely because of local ward executives, canvassers, mobilisers and ordinary members who sustain structures during elections. When these grassroots actors believe their opinions no longer matter, apathy sets in.
The allegations that dissenting voices were allegedly sidelined from empowerment programmes or shut out from internal communication platforms, if proven, could deepen resentment within the party.
Silencing internal criticism rarely resolves political disagreements. Instead, it drives anger underground until it eventually explodes during elections or party congresses.
History has shown that parties often suffer electoral setbacks when grassroots members become disenchanted with leadership decisions.
Even where the imposed candidate eventually wins the primary, lingering bitterness can weaken campaign structures ahead of the general election.
The Surulere controversy also raises another important issue. That is balancing gender inclusion with democratic fairness.
There is increasing advocacy for greater female representation in Nigerian politics, a goal many democracy advocates support. More women in legislative positions could strengthen inclusion and broaden representation.
However, stakeholders in the Surulere dispute argue that gender considerations should not override transparency, competence and open competition.
Their position reflects a broader democratic principle: aspirants should emerge through fair contests rather than perceived political protection.
Where a candidate is seen as emerging through imposition rather than merit, public perception may unfairly shift from competence to political favouritism, regardless of the aspirant’s actual qualifications.
This ultimately damages both the candidate and the credibility of female political participation itself.
The APC crisis in Surulere offers lessons not only for the party but for Nigeria’s entire political system.
Political parties must understand that transparency during primaries is critical to long-term stability.
Attempts to suppress competition may produce short-term victories but often create deeper fractures that later threaten party unity.
Open primaries, fair consultations and equal opportunities for all aspirants are essential for maintaining confidence among members.
Party leaders must also recognise that democracy cannot flourish where fear dominates political participation. Members should feel free to support aspirants of their choice without intimidation, threats or coercion.
Most importantly, parties must avoid concentrating decision-making powers within narrow political blocs. Inclusive leadership and broad consultation are necessary to sustain loyalty and trust within party structures.
As the Surulere primaries approach, the controversy will likely remain a major test of the APC’s commitment to internal democracy in Lagos.
Whether the allegations are eventually substantiated or denied, the situation already underscores a persistent challenge in Nigerian politics — the struggle between democratic participation and political control.
For many party members and observers, the key issue is no longer just who emerges as candidate, but whether the process itself will reflect fairness, transparency and the genuine will of party members.
Because once party members lose faith in internal democracy, the consequences often extend beyond a single primary election. They weaken party cohesion, damage public trust and ultimately threaten the democratic culture political parties claim to defend.
Suleiman is a public affairs analyst
