Internal Democracy Matters: Understanding the Difference Between Ratification and Competitive Primaries

By Eric Dwyse Ikwuagwu
Director, Media and Publicity, Eric Opah Campaign Organisation

ABIA- Political discourse should be driven by facts, logic, and democratic principles rather than emotions and blind loyalty. Unfortunately, attempts to objectively discuss recent developments within the Labour Party in Abia State have been met with hostility from some partisan supporters who appear unwilling to engage with the issues on their merits.

Since May 29, 2023, I have consistently offered constructive criticism of government policies and political developments where necessary. Such interventions have never been personal attacks on any individual but contributions aimed at strengthening democratic governance and accountability. Democracy thrives when differing opinions are tolerated and debated respectfully.

The events surrounding the Labour Party’s recent candidate selection process deserve to be viewed through an objective lens. What took place was not a competitive primary election in the conventional sense. The candidates had reportedly emerged through a consensus arrangement before the ratification exercise was conducted. Consequently, the process that followed was essentially an affirmation of decisions that had already been made.

This distinction is important because words matter in politics. In a competitive primary election, multiple aspirants contest for the support of delegates or party members, producing winners and losers. In a ratification or affirmation exercise, party members simply endorse candidates who have already emerged through consensus. Therefore, describing the outcome of such an exercise as candidates having “won” a contest may not accurately reflect the nature of the process.

Consensus candidacy is not inherently unlawful within party politics. However, political parties must ensure that such arrangements are transparent, inclusive, and reflective of genuine internal democratic practices. When members perceive that decisions are predetermined or controlled by a narrow group of individuals, questions naturally arise about the health of internal party democracy.

Political parties serve as the foundation of democratic governance. Their commitment to fairness, participation, and transparency directly influences public confidence in the wider democratic system. Parties that aspire to lead democratic renewal must themselves demonstrate democratic values in their internal affairs.

As the late former United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, famously observed, “The worst democracy is better than the best dictatorship.” That statement remains relevant today. Internal democracy is not merely a procedural requirement; it is a fundamental principle that safeguards participation, accountability, and legitimacy.

The future of our democracy depends not only on conducting elections but also on ensuring that political parties remain open, transparent, and accountable to their members. Constructive criticism should therefore be welcomed as part of the democratic process rather than dismissed or attacked.

Ultimately, the issue is bigger than any individual politician or political party. It is about preserving democratic values and ensuring that political institutions remain accountable to the people they claim to represent.