For those who grew up listening to tales by moonlight, the story of Tortoise and the feast in the sky must be familiar. However, for the benefit of those who missed out, here is a clear retelling:
One day, the birds were invited to a great feast in the sky. Tortoise, who could not fly, desperately wanted to go. So, he went from bird to bird, begging for feathers. Out of kindness, each bird gave him one feather and together they made him wings.
Before they set off, the birds asked Tortoise what name he would use for the journey – because in that tradition, travellers were to take special names. Tortoise smiled slyly and said: “My name is Everybody.”
The birds did not think much of it, and they all flew together to the sky. When they arrived, the hosts welcomed them warmly and said, “This feast is prepared for all of you.” Before the birds could eat, Tortoise stepped forward and said, “You heard them – they said the food is for everybody. And I am Everybody.”
With that, he sat down and ate the best portions of the meal, leaving very little for the birds. The birds were angry and felt cheated.
On the journey back, they decided to teach Tortoise a lesson. One by one, they took back the feathers they had given him. Tortoise was left alone in the sky, unable to fly.
Desperate, he asked the birds to tell his wife to bring out soft things, such as pillows and mats, to cover the ground so he could jump safely. But the birds, still upset, delivered a different message. When Tortoise jumped down, he crashed hard onto the ground, his shell cracked into pieces.
Earlier this year, when the All Progressives Congress (APC) came up with the consensus mode of selecting their party’s standard bearers, they were basically re-enacting the Tortoise’s consensus – alienating the real guardians of the democratic process. Having evolved into a formidable political structure in the space of 12 years, they seem to find no further use for their ordinary members.
For the party’s leadership, especially the governors, the consensus option did not just hand over the control of party primaries to them; it makes them decide the winners. Consensus subordinates all party members and dresses up control as agreement.
Few days ago, President Tinubu was widely quoted to have instructed serving senators and representatives to approach their state governors for party tickets. Considering the way the president’s instruction was celebrated in social media platforms by loyalists of many governors, it is obvious that what the APC term consensus is not a genuinely negotiated process shaped by active involvement of the wider party base.
From Ondo to Katsina, Bayelsa to Borno, governors’ loyalists are relishing the prospect of party tickets being distributed as rewards for allegiance and withheld from those deemed “rebellious.” Aspirants who previously did not worship at the altar of their governor are seeking connections. The existing loyal ones are deepening their acts of deference in a bid to enhance their chances of selection.
The locus of party men and women in all of this is not cloaked. No one is going to them. Aspirants are not promising them anything. The governors and Mr President are the proverbial “Everybody,” constructing themselves as the collective, and the source of legitimacy. But the Yoruba, in their wisdom, advised against individuals equating themselves with a group (Enikan ki i je Awa de). With consensus, the APC way, not only does one voice pretend to be many; dissent is muted, and unanimity manufactured in a dishonest manner.
In August 2008, at a workshop for National Assembly members in NIPSS, Kuru, Bayo Lawuyi, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Ibadan, counselled lawmakers against what he called illegitimate consensus. In a paper titled, “Legislators and challenges of conflict management in an evolving democracy,” Lawuyi described the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and other parties’ romance with consensus as produced from the fear that conflict is inimical to progress and development. He argued that even where consensus was desirable, it must be worked out within the legitimate centres. Lawuyi concluded that the consensus germane to democratic development was the one reached at the poll.
Fast forward to 2027, and the APC is still explaining consensus as a strategy to prevent acrimonious party primaries. Is it not strange that a process that sidesteps open competition is preferred to preserve a façade of party unity? How soon the APC has forgotten that the absence of internal democracy brought the PDP to its current uncertain state! Something is definitely not right with the institutional memories of our political parties.
No doubt, Nigerian politicians are not comfortable with competitive primaries, for reasons that are obvious. On the strength of logic, it should not be difficult for candidates who truly represent the will of the majority to emerge from a fair competition. But allowing open competitions might throw up candidates perceived to be too independent and potentially difficult to manipulate. Consensus eliminates the hard nuts and simply install the Yes-men, I mean loyal party men.
When party primaries are not held because there is a consensus, the effects transcend conflict prevention. Viable aspirants are pressured to withdraw because they are not favoured by party leaders, thereby narrowing the line between consensus and imposition. Most times, even without explicit force, there is often the pressure to align: No one wants to oppose the governor or president openly out of fear of losing favour or opportunities.
The absence of open dissent may mask the discontent among party members, especially those who lost to consensus. Over time, this undermines internal democracy, weakens party cohesion, and creates the faultlines that diminish the party’s overall competitiveness. Las las, as it is said in Nigerian streets, the cheated birds will take back their feathers and Tortoise, like Humpty Dumpty, will have a great fall!
Already, the language of consensus is fouling the democratic ambience. On a daily basis, people talk of a presidential aspirant who should be “given” his party’s ticket rather than the said aspirant “winning” the ticket. As pedestrian as the awkward phrasing might appear, it reflects a belief that the democratic process is short-circuited, with power residing in the hands of a few elites.
Let there be no mistake: a president or governor may hold preferences. However, those preferences must be validated through a credible and transparent selection process, not from ordination. Preferences expressed by leaders can be part of internal party dialogue. They must ultimately be subjected to a legitimate selection process, one that offers opportunity for multiple aspirants to test their acceptability among party members.
Without equivocation, the current attitude of the APC towards contested primaries mirrors a democratic process evolving backward. With every election cycle, the system exhibits symptoms of progeroid syndrome, becoming increasingly dependent on elite direction, and gradually losing the legitimacy that come from open political competition. How long it will take before it loses all semblance of democracy, only time shall tell.
*Jide Ololajulo, PhD writes from Abuja