By Thomas Danjuma Abu
In recent times, the consensus candidate model has become a recurring feature in my political domain. While convenient for avoiding conflict among party elites, it raises a critical question: has democracy taken a break while the elites decide everything? Consensus candidacy, where a single candidate is selected behind closed doors, bypasses the democratic process, stifles debate, and turns the political process into a deal-making game for a few elites.
Democracy Without Competition: Who Needs Choices?
Democracy thrives on freedom of choice. John Locke argued that government legitimacy stems from the consent of the people. This requires a range of candidates, each offering different ideas. However, the consensus candidate approach limits this freedom, narrowing the selection to a single pre-approved individual, decided through backdoor deals.
In my political domain, this trend has turned elections into mere formalities. Voters are presented with a “take it or leave it” option—an illusion of democracy. True political competition and the exchange of ideas are sacrificed for convenience.
Rousseau Would Be Rolling in His Grave
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s idea of the “general will”—the collective interest of the people—should form the foundation of democratic governance. Consensus candidates, however, often represent the interests of a small, influential group rather than the majority.
Consensus candidates are typically chosen for their acceptability to the political class rather than their alignment with the people’s interests. This sidelines the electorate, creating a dangerous disconnect between rulers and the ruled. It fosters disillusionment and makes people question whether their voices even matter in a system controlled by a powerful few.
Political Innovation: Another Victim
John Stuart Mill emphasized that competing ideas drive societal progress. Democracy thrives when candidates compete to offer new solutions. Consensus candidacy, however, suffocates this marketplace by limiting ideas to a safe, pre-approved menu.
In my political context, reliance on consensus candidacy has stifled innovation. Candidates chosen through this method are often those who “ruffle the fewest feathers,” rather than those with fresh, bold ideas. This leads to stagnation and a lack of progress.
Accountability? What Accountability?
Immanuel Kant stressed the moral obligation of leaders to be accountable to the people. In a truly competitive democracy, candidates are held to high standards through public scrutiny and open competition. Consensus candidates, however, avoid this accountability. They don’t have to prove themselves, resulting in an environment ripe for inefficiency and poor governance.
Without competition, voters lose their ability to hold leaders accountable in any meaningful way.
Weakening Political Institutions
Political parties should be dynamic institutions that facilitate democratic participation. Yet, consensus candidacy weakens these institutions by sidelining their democratic processes. Instead of fostering internal debates and elections, parties become negotiation rooms for elites to decide candidates behind closed doors.
In the political sphere I observe, this has eroded party structures. Party members are reduced to mere spectators, while a select few pull the strings.
Where’s the Democracy?
If democracy is about free choice, consensus candidacy is its opposite. By handing voters a single, pre-selected option, the process raises serious questions about legitimacy. Consensus candidates are often a product of political patronage, designed to maintain the status quo.
This practice has led to disillusionment among the electorate. People are increasingly skeptical of a system where their choice feels predetermined, leading to lower engagement and alienation from the political process.
Time to Wake Democracy Up
The trend of consensus candidacy is a wake-up call. Democracy thrives on competition, choice, and accountability—values that are all compromised when elites control the process behind closed doors. For democracy to function, it needs open competition where the people’s voices can genuinely be heard.
It’s time to reject the idea that elites should choose our leaders and reclaim the democratic values of transparency, competition, and choice.
Abu can be reached via danjumaabu3750@gmail.com or +2348062380296.
Peoplesmind
