TDThe unfolding developments within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) over its ongoing Ward, Local Government Area (LGA), and State Congresses present yet another troubling reflection of a deeper, systemic problem in Nigeria’s political culture.
At a time when political parties should be strengthening internal democracy ahead of future elections, disturbing reports have emerged from across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) alleging the hoarding of congress materials—materials that are fundamental to the conduct of free, fair, and credible intra-party elections.
These are not minor administrative lapses. They strike at the very heart of democratic integrity.
When election materials are withheld, controlled, or selectively distributed, the process is no longer democratic—it becomes orchestrated.
Outcomes risk being predetermined, participation restricted, and trust eroded before a single vote is cast.
Even more concerning is that such practices persist despite clear guidelines.
The rules governing the sale of nomination forms, membership eligibility, and congress procedures are neither ambiguous nor inaccessible.
They are designed to ensure equal opportunity, transparency, and fairness. Yet, the gap between written rules and actual conduct remains glaring.
This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question:
“Is there something in the DNA of Nigerian politicians that abhors adherence to democratic norms and transparency?”
While the question may sound provocative, the pattern it reflects is undeniable.
Across party lines, election cycles, and levels of governance, the same issues recur—manipulation of processes, sidelining of due procedure, and an apparent preference for control over credibility.
Internal party elections, which should serve as the training ground for democratic governance, too often become arenas of exclusion and imposition.
The irony is striking. Political actors who publicly champion democracy frequently struggle to practice it within their own institutions.
Parties, which ought to model democratic values, instead mirror the very deficiencies they promise to correct at the national level.
In the case of the ADC, the situation demands urgent attention from its national leadership, particularly under the chairmanship of Senator David Mark.
The credibility of the party—and by extension, its viability as a democratic alternative—depends on its willingness to enforce its own rules without fear or favour.
There must be immediate clarity and enforcement on a critical point: congress materials should be handled strictly by designated party officials, particularly State Organizing Secretaries, across all states and the FCT.
Any deviation from this structure invites manipulation and undermines confidence in the process.
More broadly, this moment calls for introspection within Nigeria’s political class.
Democracy is not sustained by rhetoric but by practice—by a consistent commitment to rules, fairness, and transparency, even when inconvenient.
If political parties cannot conduct credible internal elections, how can they be entrusted with conducting credible national governance?
The answer to Nigeria’s democratic challenges does not lie solely in electoral reforms or institutional redesign.
It lies, fundamentally, in political will—the willingness of leaders to subordinate personal and factional interests to the rules of the game.
Until that happens, the question will continue to linger, uncomfortable yet persistent:
Do Nigerian politicians truly believe in democracy, or merely in winning?
