The Erosion of Democratic Principles: A Takeover by the Elite, by Dakuku Peterside

Dakuku Peterside notes that democracy can erode silently, hidden behind a facade of legitimacy, procedure, and familiar political rhetoric, without the overt use of force or authoritarian decrees.

n

The constitution remains in place, party offices continue to function, primaries are announced, and delegates gather, all while leaders speak about unity, but the essence of democracy may have already been compromised.

n

This danger is particularly evident in Nigeria's party politics, with Rivers State being a notable example, where the concept of consensus has been corrupted, transforming it into a tool for undermining democratic principles.

n

When properly understood, consensus is not inherently anti-democratic, as it can be the result of open consultation and honest negotiation among party members, leading to a collective decision that promotes unity and reduces conflict.

n

However, consensus becomes fraudulent when it is imposed from above, with aspirants being coerced into withdrawing, delegates being treated as mere instruments, and party members being relegated to merely endorsing decisions made by others, resulting in a situation where consensus without consent is equivalent to submission.

n

This is a critical issue because democracy's foundation is laid before the general election, and the most crucial question - who appears on the ballot - may already have been decided, potentially rendering the electoral process meaningless if candidates are selected through private bargains between governors, party financiers, and national power brokers.

n

Rivers State is a significant case, given its economic, electoral, and symbolic importance, and the fact that its politics can have far-reaching consequences, making it a bellwether for the health of democracy in the country.

n

When candidate selection in a state like Rivers is dictated more by elite negotiation than by party members, it sends a disturbing message that membership does not guarantee a voice, loyalty to patrons may be more valuable than loyalty to principles, and political ambition without elite backing is often futile.

n

This is how democracy is gradually hollowed out from within, as elections continue, but meaningful choice disappears, parties become vehicles for private settlements, and primaries are held with predetermined outcomes, reducing the language of democracy to a mere facade.

n

The citizen is reduced to a mere spectator, the party member becomes a prop, and the aspirant becomes dependent on patronage rather than persuasion, resulting in bad governance, as a candidate imposed through elite arrangements enters office with debts owed primarily to those who installed them.

n

The consequence of this is not merely political unfairness but also bad governance, as public office becomes a platform for repaying debts, with appointments, contracts, access, protection, and silence becoming the currency of political settlement, leaving citizens wondering why leaders seem distant from their needs.

n

Defenders of imposed consensus argue that open primaries are chaotic, expensive, and divisive, pointing to issues like vote-buying, intimidation, and factional conflict, but the answer to a flawed democratic process cannot be the abolition of democratic choice.

n

Instead of eliminating competition, the solution lies in reforming the primary process, making it more transparent, and strengthening internal party institutions to address issues like corruption and disputes, rather than confusing control with legitimacy.

n

False unity is not stability; it is merely a postponed conflict, as those denied a voice may smile in public but will eventually seek revenge through sabotage, apathy, defections, court cases, and distrust.

n

A fair contest may wound egos, but it gives losers a reason to accept defeat, whereas an imposed candidate gives the excluded a reason to seek revenge, making political peace manufactured by force temporary and legitimacy earned through participation more lasting.

n

The greater danger is cultural, as once party members learn that outcomes are decided by an inner circle, politics loses its democratic soul, and people stop asking who has the best ideas, instead asking who has been anointed, leading to a clustering around patrons rather than programmes.

n

Conviction becomes risky, independence becomes punishable, and silence becomes strategic, ultimately reducing democracy to a performance, with loud rallies, colourful posters, scripted endorsements, and empty participation.

n

Nigeria must stop treating candidate selection as a private affair of political parties, as parties are not ordinary clubs but gatekeepers of public leadership, and their internal processes shape the quality of governors, lawmakers, presidents, and councillors.

n

When parties fail internally, the nation pays externally, and a democracy that tolerates dictatorship inside parties cannot produce accountability in government, making it essential to ensure that aspirants are free to contest or withdraw, members are genuinely consulted, dissent is permitted, and the process is transparent.

n

Where the answer to these questions is no, consensus becomes a lie, and a civilian coup does not always suspend the constitution, sometimes operating through party secretariats, governors' lodges, hotel rooms, and private homes, preserving the rituals of democracy while stripping away its essence.

n

That is the tragedy of elite capture, which does not merely weaken democracy but normalises democracy without choice, unity without consent, and leadership without legitimacy, ultimately rendering democracy lifeless, embalmed for public display.

n

Dr Peterside is the author of “Leading in a Storm” and “Beneath the Surface”.