Abstract

The study set out to describe how the selected parties practise consensus candidacy, to assess the extent to which the practice conforms to the principles of intra-party democracy, and to determine the relationship between consensus candidacy and democratic confidence among party members and the electorate. Anchored on elite theory and David Easton’s theory of political support, the study adopted a mixed-methods design combining a structured questionnaire administered to 384 respondents across selected states with documentary analysis of party constitutions, the Electoral Act, and judicial decisions on disputed primaries. Research questions were analysed using simple percentages and descriptive statistics, while the hypotheses were tested using Pearson product-moment correlation and simple linear regression at the 0.05 level of significance. Findings revealed that consensus candidacy as practised by the selected parties is dominated by elite negotiation and godfather influence, that it largely violates the participatory ideals of intra-party democracy, and that there is a strong, statistically significant negative relationship between elite-driven consensus candidacy and democratic confidence (r = -0.71, p < 0.05). The study concludes that consensus, though legally valid, erodes democratic confidence when it substitutes backroom bargaining for member participation, and recommends statutory tightening of the written-consent requirement, mandatory monitoring of consensus arrangements by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and the strengthening of internal party democracy