Menu

Is democracy ‘work abandoned’? 08 Jun 2026

The comforting notion for those Afro-optimists who survey the failure of democracy in Africa is to argue that it is a work in progress. They point out that it took the advanced Western democracies many centuries to get to where they are now. So, if we trust the process and keep faith, we will become as democratic as the West. This is the argument that democracy is a ‘work in progress’. But the events of May 2026, when Nigerian political parties held primaries to select their candidates for the 2027 general elections, point to the fact that, in Nigeria, democracy may be ‘work abandoned’.

In May, Nigerian political parties were required to hold primary elections to select candidates for various elective offices in the 2027 general elections. It is important to emphasise that they were forced because the electoral law and the guidelines from the election management body, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), did not give party leaders sufficient discretion or time to conduct their elective primaries. First, the new election law, hurriedly put together by a rubber-stamp National Assembly, is incoherent and intrusive in mandating that political parties use only direct primaries or consensus to elect party candidates. Under the old law, party leaders can choose among direct, indirect, and consensus primaries. This constriction of the choice of party leaders may be constitutional, but it is inconsistent with the freedom of association, which is foundational to democracy.

The current electoral regime has two problems. First, it undermines the independence of political parties. The right jurisprudence for electoral democracy is one that leaves to political parties the choice of how they select their candidates for election. It is enough that the electoral law prescribes that candidates should be democratically elected, which means that the members of the parties should have the right to choose their candidates. The method adopted to actualise this democratic principle should be left to each political party. This also aligns with the dominant jurisprudence of election cases from the Supreme Court, which emphasises that the ‘internal affairs’ of political parties are not subject to judicial review. The idea is that political parties should decide how to uphold the democratic principle.

But the more serious problems with the regulatory mandate governing the conduct of primary elections are the timeframe for completing the process and the absence of rules for direct primaries. The result is that the primaries ended up chaotic and manipulated. How would political parties conduct credible primary elections for 336 House of Representatives seats, 108 Senate seats, about 32 Governor's seats and the presidency within a month? 

Two of the leading opposition parties are newly formed and lack a well-established structure to conduct primary elections nationwide. The same electoral law also mandates that parties electronically register their members afresh within the same period. The parties must also ensure that their verified electronic membership registers are submitted to INEC 21 days before the proposed primaries. As expected, people continued to register until the last day, the last minute. No party had the time to verify its membership list. None publicly published its verified membership list so that aspirants to elective office in the party would know whom to campaign for votes. There was no protocol for accrediting party members to vote in the proposed primary. There was no protocol for free and fair voting and accurate counting of votes. The parties just muddled through, without any clear process, and with much manipulation and confusion.

At the end, the primaries were held. An event has occurred, and an item on the checklist has been crossed out. But no movement towards democracy. Each party went through a show, but leaders sat in cubicles and selected candidates they love or believe can win for their party. It was a selection, not an election. From reports on the various primaries, an analyst would conclude that 2026 is the worst primary season since Nigeria's return to democracy in 1999. 

The sad part is that the process of enacting the 2026 electoral law, the harbinger and mastermind of the chaos and confusion of the 2027 electoral cycle, was promoted as a way to deepen democracy and entrench greater integrity in the electoral system. Direct election was promoted as a panacea for the democratic deficits of indirect election, which favoured party executives and moneybags and restricted choice for ordinary party members. The logic was that direct election would enable all party members to have a voice and a vote in deciding who becomes party candidates. But, by virtue of INEC’s capture by the ruling government, its ineffective regulation, the dilapidated state of party administration in Nigeria worsened by the judicialisation of politics, and the lack of commitment to due process by Nigerian political elites, the logic of the direct primary model has resulted in the disenfranchisement of party members and the concentration of political power in a few party bureaucrats and their financial masters.

This is the point. The democratic quotient of the electoral process deteriorates with each electoral cycle. The absence of systems, processes and administrative capacity for fair and effective decision-making in the political system may ultimately prove more damaging to democracy in Nigeria than even the culture of corruption. In other words, the real enemy of democratisation is the continuing deterioration of the rudiments of the administrative state. That is, the problem is more with the political system than with the political culture. 

Clearly, with the state of administrative decay in the political system, democracy is no longer a work in progress. It is work abandoned. 

Sam Amadi, PhD, a former Chairman of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, is the Director of Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts.