By Islamiyat Adetiba
The recently concluded congress of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Oyo State has once again brought to the fore a recurring issue in Nigerian party politics—the misuse of “consensus” as a cloak for imposition. While consensus, in principle, is a noble democratic tool meant to foster unity and reduce conflict, its application in this instance appears deeply flawed and, arguably, misleading.
At its core, consensus implies broad-based agreement among stakeholders, achieved through consultation, negotiation, and mutual compromise. It is not merely the absence of open contestation but the presence of genuine inclusion. However, what transpired in Oyo State raises serious questions about whether these ideals were upheld or simply invoked as a convenient narrative.
Reports and reactions from within the party suggest that the so-called consensus process was less about collective agreement and more about decisions taken by a select group of power brokers. Many party members and aspirants have expressed concerns over exclusion, alleging that they were neither consulted nor given a fair opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. When outcomes are predetermined and dissenting voices sidelined, consensus becomes a rhetorical device rather than a democratic outcome.
The role of the congress committee, led by Fatai Ibikunle, is central to this controversy. As an umpire, the committee was expected to ensure neutrality, transparency, and fairness. Yet, the perception—rightly or wrongly is that the process lacked these essential qualities. In political processes, perception often carries as much weight as reality. A congress that is widely seen as biased or exclusionary cannot command legitimacy, regardless of the official narrative.
This development poses a significant threat to internal party democracy within the APC in Oyo State. Political parties are the foundation of democratic governance, and their internal processes should reflect the values they claim to uphold nationally. When internal democracy is compromised, it not only alienates party members but also weakens the party’s moral authority to contest elections on the platform of fairness and justice.
Beyond internal implications, the consequences of such a flawed process are far-reaching. Aggrieved members may resort to litigation, deepening divisions within the party. Factionalism could intensify, undermining cohesion and electoral preparedness. In a politically competitive environment like Oyo State, disunity within the ranks can significantly diminish the party’s chances at the polls.
More broadly, this situation reflects a troubling pattern in Nigerian politics, where “consensus” is frequently used to suppress competition rather than manage it. Instead of serving as a tool for unity, it becomes an instrument of control, reinforcing elite dominance at the expense of grassroots participation. This trend, if left unchecked, risks eroding public confidence in the democratic process itself.
It is important to emphasize that consensus is not inherently problematic. When genuinely pursued, it can strengthen parties and promote stability. However, for consensus to be credible, it must be transparent, inclusive, and voluntary. Anything short of this amounts to imposition dressed in democratic language.
The APC in Oyo State stands at a crossroads. It can either reflect on the shortcomings of this congress and take deliberate steps to rebuild trust among its members, or it can continue down a path that prioritizes short-term control over long-term unity. The choice it makes will not only determine its internal stability but also its future electoral fortunes.
In the end, democracy is not just about outcomes—it is about process. And when the process is flawed, no amount of political branding can redeem it.
Ms Adetiba, a concerned party member writes from Lagos
