Political Parties, Legal Regulations, and Candidate Selection in Nigeria's Fourth Republic (1999-2019)

Abstract

Political party has been identified as a core institution of democracy. In Nigeria, their emergence, evolution, and how they select candidates for election have been expansively studied. Few studies have interrogated the legal regulations of candidate selection by parties; fewer still have interrogated the factors that account for the change in candidate selection methods and how it impacts democratic consolidation. This study examined the implications of undemocratic candidate selection methods on the basic principles of democracy in Nigeria. The illiberal theory of democracy was adopted as the analytical tool for this study. The theory is premised on the view that democratic governments frequently disregard the rule of law that checks the exercise of political authority to prevent infringement on citizens’ rights. The primary data for the study was collected using the Key Informant, In-depth interviews, YoubeTube interviews of party stalwarts and that of the INEC Chairman, and non-participant observation. This was supplemented with secondary data on political parties and candidate selection methods. Respondents for interviews were drawn from the rank-and-file members of the parties, academics, and lawyers. The study found that party primaries in Nigeria are regulated more by illegal regulations than legal regulations, hence the preponderance of the judicialisation of disputed primaries. Disputed primary elections have implications on the basic principles of participatory democracy and competition which is crucial in achieving democratic consolidation. This explains why Nigeria is experiencing the “slow death” of democracy, as evidenced by the rise of illiberal democracy and the country’s detention in the “political gray zone”. To curtail the incidence of disputed primaries elections that interfere with elections, the Electoral Act should be amended by extending the interval between primaries and elections, to allow room for the adjudication of disputed primaries. Direct primaries should be introduced in lieu of the delegate and consensus methods.