By Bayo Fasunwon

The battle for the number one seat in Ondo State is on. Even the unemployed, entrepreneurs and workers who are not direct contestants in the election are already feeling the heat. Many contenders, for just a seat? Did I hear you say that is the situation in the quest for employment in this country? The major battle for now is who flies the flags of the parties in the election, that is, contestants for now are only contesting for the parties’ tickets in order to contest for the position of their dreams.
It is the quest for parties’ tickets that brings the debate on whether parties should adopt either the direct or indirect modes of primaries in order to choose their candidates for the contest. This debate would continue as other States would need to contest for elections in the near future. In order to promote internal democracy, rancour free party politics and possibly reduce cost, this piece is written.
The Greeks laid the foundation for democracy. Decisions were made by the gatherings of the people at a square to debate and reach decisions which are binding on the people. The Igbo also practiced democracy as they had their village square meetings to take decisions on vital issues. All in all, these examples show that the people are participants in policy and decision making.
However, given the population explosion, time and space constraints, democracy has become in many countries, a government of representatives, for the ‘people’ by the elect. Thus, most people, beyond expressing their decisions on who rules them, are restricted in participating in the governing of their lives. Unfortunately, in most cases, representatives are gullible, self centred and distanced from the people to actually articulate, aggregate and circulate the people’s intention in decision making., thus exacerbating the demands for either direct or indirect primaries.
Direct primaries is understood as a situation where all card carrying members of a political party cast their votes on a given day, and time in support of a candidate, whom they would prefer to hoist the flag of the party in forthcoming elections. It is believed that the candidate who has the majority support of party members is popular enough to win elections on behalf of the party. Beside this, direct primaries give ample opportunities to all members of the political parties to take part in decision making, as is expected in a true democracy.
In direct primaries, the incidence of vote buying is highly reduced, post primary squirmish are abated and the most popular, possibly not the best, emerges as the candidate of the party. Therefore, in most cases, the financial burden of conducting the primary elections is borne by the party, thereby reducing the electioneering costs of the candidates.
Furthermore, the power of political godfathers is often reduced as candidates are often the choice of the people. Often times when candidates elected in direct primaries eventually get to power, his/her obligations would be to the people who gave him the mandate rather to certain delegates or ‘kingmaker’ whose demands may hamper the elect’s programme. For any party that wishes to guarantee inclusive governance, prevent cracks in the party, post election litigations, or losing their hard earned election victory in the court room, the direct primary option seems the best way to go.
On the other hand, an indirect primary occurs when the party through certain guidelines provides for an electoral college, made up selected elites, by accepted means, which would be saddled with the opportunity of electing the party’s flag bearer. In this case, few party members are involved in the selection process. In theory, delegates are expected to confer with their constituents in order to guide the voting pattern. The reality however is that delegates vote according to personal convictions. The convictions often times arise from pecuniary interests in the present or future. So, in indirect primaries, it is quite possible for godfathers and wealthy contestants to ‘persuade’ supports, contrary to the desire of those being represented by the delegates.
Beyond this, one has observed that the determination of the delegates is the first problem that arises, and which may cost the party the position in the long run. Even during elections, there have been cases where ‘ghosts’ participate in the process. However, the cost of conducting this type of primary is reduced on the political party in the long run. More often than not, politicians are saddled with the overbearing cost, through vote buying strategies. However, in a cohesive party, indirect primaries, when conducted in an atmosphere of fairness and transparency is less cumbersome and produces a viable candidate for elections.
Let me however propose a third variant. One has witnessed indirect primaries, where some contestants would poll less than ten votes. Their inclusion in the contest was a waste of resources, time and sometimes the peace of the party. While they have the right to contest, there should have been a strategy of weeding out weak contestants before the final primaries. To this end, let me propose that parties should divide the process of arriving at the choice of their candidates into three, in order to get their most credible contestant.
The first process would be the general screening of contestants’ submitted credentials, health and party loyalty. The second process should be the conduct of acceptability elections at the local government of origin of the contestants. There are times when three or four contestants are from the same local government area. Party members at the local government levels must vote to support the candidacy of contestants and only candidates who have an agreed percentage (say 50%) should be allowed to contest at the State primaries. The idea is that if you cannot win elections at the local government level, what business do you have at the State level? This will reduce the number of contestants to be considered at the State level and also ensure that the best candidate eventually emerges for the party. It would also encourage political inclusions of all party members in deciding who wears the crown.
All in all, political parties should ensure an acceptable process of arriving at their flag bearers, such that the cohesion, strength and continuity of the party are not compromised. My stand is that parties should also ensure a system whereby all party members, irrespective of social status, are able to participate in the choice of their candidates for all levels of election.