In the evolving political landscape of the internal dynamics of the (APC) are fast becoming a subject of concern—not just for party loyalists, but for observers of democratic development. What appears on the surface as organizational unity may, in reality, be a dangerous illusion. The party’s gradual shift from the crude imposition of “jagba” politics to a more polished but equally flawed “consensus” arrangement could prove costly in the 2027 general elections.
“Jagba,” in local political parlance, represents the forceful takeover or imposition of decisions by a select few power brokers. In Oyo APC, this culture has historically undermined internal democracy, sidelined credible aspirants, and alienated grassroots stakeholders. While it often delivers short-term control, its long-term consequence is fragmentation breeding discontent among those excluded from the decision-making process.
In an apparent attempt to move away from this model, the party has embraced what it calls “consensus.” However, events surrounding recent congresses, including those overseen by figures such as Zacchaeus Adedeji, Fatai Ibikunle and other Abuja Mafia suggest that this consensus is, in many cases, neither organic nor inclusive. Instead, it is perceived as a prearranged outcome presented to members as a collective agreement leaving little or no room for genuine participation or dissent.
This transition from jagba to what can best be described as fallacious consensus has not resolved internal tensions within the party. Rather, it has deepened mistrust. Party members who feel marginalized are less likely to remain committed during critical electoral moments. Some may defect quietly; others may remain within the fold but disengage entirely from campaign efforts. In politics, such silent resistance can be more damaging than open opposition.
The implications for the APC in Oyo State are significant. Elections are not won solely through party structures or elite endorsements; they are won through mobilization, trust, and unity at the grassroots. A divided house, no matter how well branded, cannot stand effectively against a more cohesive opposition.
Moreover, the electorate in Oyo State is increasingly discerning. Voters are paying closer attention not just to campaign promises, but to the internal character of political parties. A party perceived as undemocratic within its own ranks may struggle to convince the public of its commitment to democratic governance.
Looking ahead to 2027, the APC faces a critical test. It must decide whether to continue along the current path where consensus is enforced rather than negotiated—or to undertake genuine reforms that prioritize transparency, fairness, and inclusion. The difference between these two approaches may well determine the party’s electoral fate.
If the APC is to remain competitive in Oyo State, it must return to the fundamentals of party democracy. Open and credible primaries, stakeholder engagement, and respect for diverse interests within the party are not optional, they are essential. Without these, the party risks entering the 2027 elections weakened, divided, and disconnected from the very base it seeks to lead.
In the end, the lesson is clear: a political party cannot impose unity and expect loyalty. True consensus is built, not manufactured. And where it is absent, electoral consequences are inevitable.
