In a functioning democracy, political parties are expected to provide a level playing field for all aspirants. However, in the case of the All Progressives Congress (APC) chairmanship race, the decision to adopt indirect primaries is raising serious concerns—and rightfully so. To many observers and stakeholders, this move is not just undemocratic. It is a deliberate and systematic way of eliminating other aspirants from fair contention.
Indirect primaries, by design, place the power of selection in the hands of a few party delegates—many of whom are handpicked, loyal to the incumbents, or influenced by godfathers. In contrast to direct primaries, which allow registered party members to vote en masse, the indirect system restricts participation and concentrates power in the hands of those who already control the party machinery.
The implications are clear:
Grassroots voices are silenced.
Merit is replaced with manipulation.
Transparency is traded for backdoor deals.
This process favours moneybags, political heavyweights, and those with entrenched connections—leaving passionate, qualified, and popular aspirants with no realistic pathway to victory. It reduces elections to a selection exercise, where loyalty and cash flow matter more than vision, competence, or grassroots support.
For a party that claims to champion democracy and progressive governance, this approach is deeply hypocritical. It fosters internal injustice, creates cracks within the party, and pushes away young, competent leaders who are tired of recycled politicians and rigged structures.
The APC must be reminded: when you silence the will of the people internally, you weaken your moral authority externally. A political party that kills competition within cannot birth inclusive governance outside.
If the leadership truly wants credibility and unity, the way forward is clear:
Adopt direct primaries. Allow the people to decide. Give every aspirant a fair shot.
Anything less is not democracy—it is dictatorship in disguise.
Taiwo Adekunle
6 May, 2025