In a significant intervention into Nigeria’s electoral governance, a former presidential candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) has issued a pointed call to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), urging the regulatory body to fundamentally respect the principle of party autonomy. This appeal strikes at the heart of a recurring tension in Nigeria’s democracy: the balance between necessary electoral oversight and the constitutional right of political parties to self-determination.
The call goes beyond a simple request; it is a critique of what the candidate and many political observers perceive as an overreach by INEC into the internal affairs of political parties. This overreach, they argue, often manifests in the commission’s handling of party primaries, candidate nominations, and the resolution of internal party disputes. When INEC imposes decisions or invalidates a party’s internal processes, it effectively disenfranchises party members and undermines the very democratic principles it is meant to uphold. [[PEAI_MEDIA_X]]
To understand the gravity of this appeal, one must consider the legal and constitutional context. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act guarantee the right to freedom of association, which inherently includes the right of a political party to govern its own affairs. Party autonomy is not a privilege but a cornerstone of a multi-party democracy. It allows parties to develop distinct ideologies, select leaders that embody their values, and present a genuine choice to the electorate. When this autonomy is compromised, the political landscape flattens, and elections become less about competing visions for the nation and more about compliance with regulatory diktats.
Practical examples of this tension are abundant. For instance, INEC’s power to monitor and “endorse” party primaries can sometimes cross the line from observation to interference. There have been cases where the commission has refused to accept a candidate nominated by a party based on INEC’s interpretation of the party’s own guidelines, rather than a clear violation of the Electoral Act. This creates a scenario where an unelected commission can effectively choose candidates for political parties, diluting internal democracy. [[PEAI_MEDIA_X]]
The former SDP candidate’s position likely stems from firsthand experience with these bureaucratic challenges. His appeal suggests that excessive control stifles political innovation and entrenches a system where only parties with the resources to navigate INEC’s complex regulatory maze can thrive. This disadvantages smaller parties like the SDP, perpetuating the dominance of the two major political parties and limiting voter choice.
Respecting party autonomy does not mean an absence of regulation. INEC has a crucial mandate to ensure parties comply with national laws, including provisions on financial accountability, inclusivity, and the avoidance of violence. The line should be drawn at procedural oversight versus substantive interference. INEC’s role should be to ensure the process is fair and transparent according to the party’s own rules and the law, not to dictate the outcome.
In conclusion, this call from the former SDP standard-bearer is a vital reminder that for Nigeria’s democracy to deepen, its institutions must nurture organic political growth. A truly independent INEC should act as a referee on the field, not as a coach selecting the players. Upholding party autonomy is essential for fostering competitive, issue-based politics and restoring greater public trust in the electoral process as a whole. The commission’s response to this principled appeal will be a key indicator of its commitment to facilitating a vibrant and truly pluralistic democracy. [[PEAI_MEDIA_X]]
