The High Cost of Imposing Policies

Kayode Suleiman argues that democracy thrives in an atmosphere where political choices are made freely

The tension growing in the Surulere branch of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) over alleged intimidation, coercion and attempts to impose a favored aspirant ahead of the Lagos State House of Assembly primaries highlights a major threat to Nigeria’s democratic culture – candidate imposition.

Although the accusations against Surulere party leaders have not been verified and the APC national leadership has not issued an official response, the dispute has already sparked broader debate about internal party democracy, misuse of political structures, and the long‑term impact of denying members a free and fair contest.

Central to the controversy are claims that certain influential political actors had selected a preferred candidate well before the primaries and allegedly used party structures, empowerment programmes, and patronage networks to secure support for that individual.

Many observers see the crisis as more than a local issue. It reflects a recurring pattern in Nigerian parties where power blocs, political godfathers and senior office‑holders often decide candidates before delegates or rank‑and‑file members cast their votes.

Competition is a fundamental pillar of democracy. Political parties are expected to provide platforms where aspirants can openly test their popularity, competence and acceptability among party members.

When party leaders begin to dictate outcomes or intimidate members into backing a chosen candidate, the credibility of the process is immediately called into question.

The Surulere allegations suggest that some party executives and grassroots members felt pressured to align with a predetermined political direction.

If these claims are true, they could erode confidence in the primary election process and discourage ordinary party members from participating.

Internal democracy is not merely a procedural formality; it is essential for party stability and legitimacy.

When aspirants believe that results are already decided before primaries take place, contests become symbolic exercises rather than genuine democratic processes.

This often marks the beginning of deeper political crises.

Across Nigeria, several disputes that later escalated into defections, litigation and anti‑party activities began with allegations of imposition during party primaries.

Aspirants who feel cheated frequently withdraw their loyalty, sponsor internal rebellions, or quietly work against their own party in general elections.

More troubling are accusations that some party appointees and members were threatened with loss of appointments if they failed to support the preferred aspirant.

Even though these claims remain unproven, they raise serious concerns about the weaponisation of political appointments and state influence in party contests.

Democracy flourishes when political choices are made freely, not under fear or intimidation. When appointments, empowerment schemes or patronage become tools for coercion, political participation ceases to be voluntary.

The implication is dangerous.

Party members may publicly endorse candidates they privately oppose simply to protect their positions or ensure political survival.

This creates an artificial sense of popularity around aspirants and suppresses honest political engagement.

Over time, such a culture yields weak democratic institutions where loyalty to powerful individuals outweighs competence, ideas or public service.

Political parties worldwide sometimes adopt consensus arrangements. Consensus is not illegal or undemocratic if it emerges from broad consultation, negotiation and voluntary agreement among aspirants and stakeholders.

The problem begins when “consensus” becomes a euphemism for exclusion or force.

The Surulere controversy illustrates this delicate distinction. Some stakeholders claim there was no genuine consensus process and that support structures were directed to favour one aspirant before other contestants received equal opportunities.

When aspirants are pressured to withdraw or delegates fear punishment for independent choices, consensus loses its democratic legitimacy.

For any party, especially one that brands itself as progressive, the integrity of the process is often more important than the identity of the eventual winner.

A transparent primary where contestants compete freely is more likely to generate unity after the contest than a process perceived as manipulated from the outset.

Another danger of candidate imposition is grassroots disillusionment. Parties survive largely because of local ward executives, canvassers, mobilisers and ordinary members who sustain structures during elections. When these actors feel their opinions no longer matter, apathy sets in.

If allegations that dissenting voices were sidelined from empowerment programmes or excluded from internal communication platforms are proven, resentment within the party could deepen.

Silencing internal criticism rarely resolves disagreements; instead, it drives anger underground until it erupts during elections or party congresses.

History shows that parties often suffer electoral setbacks when grassroots members become disenchanted with leadership decisions.

Even when an imposed candidate ultimately wins the primary, lingering bitterness can weaken campaign structures ahead of the general election.

The Surulere dispute also raises an important issue: balancing gender inclusion with democratic fairness.

There is growing advocacy for greater female representation in Nigerian politics, a goal many democracy promoters support. More women in legislative positions could enhance inclusion and broaden representation.

Stakeholders in the Surulere conflict argue, however, that gender considerations should not override transparency, competence and open competition.

Their stance reflects a broader democratic principle: aspirants should emerge through fair contests rather than perceived political protection.

When a candidate is seen as the product of imposition rather than merit, public perception may shift from competence to political favouritism, regardless of the aspirant’s actual qualifications.

This perception damages both the candidate and the credibility of female political participation.

The APC crisis in Surulere offers lessons for the party and for Nigeria’s entire political system.

Political parties must recognise that transparency during primaries is critical to long‑term stability.

Attempts to suppress competition may yield 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 understand 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 power 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,