Party Supremacy Without Accountability Is a Dangerous Contradiction

The debate generated by the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) NEC communiqué is both timely and necessary. While the party leadership has framed its resolutions as measures aimed at institutionalizing the party and preventing the emergence of personality cults, there is a fundamental issue that cannot be ignored: accountability must come before supremacy.
No democratic institution can legitimately demand unquestioned authority while facing serious allegations regarding its own internal conduct.
The NDC leadership argues that party supremacy is necessary to prevent elected officials from abandoning party ideals once in office. That argument has merit. Nigeria’s political history is filled with examples of governors and presidents who treated political parties as mere election vehicles before sidelining them after victory.
However, party supremacy cannot exist in isolation from transparency and internal democracy.
A party that seeks to control campaign finances, supervise support groups, determine governance structures, and influence post-election decision-making must first demonstrate that its own internal processes are beyond reproach.
This is where concerns begin to emerge.
Across various levels of the party, allegations have surfaced that aspirants were subjected to demands for so-called “donations” running into millions of naira as a condition for obtaining party tickets. Whether these allegations are eventually proven or disproven, they cannot simply be ignored while party leaders simultaneously demand greater authority over members and candidates.
The principle is straightforward: power must be accompanied by accountability.
If party leaders expect candidates to disclose campaign finances, then party leaders should equally disclose party finances.
If aspirants are expected to submit to disciplinary measures, party executives must be willing to subject themselves to independent scrutiny.
If elected officials are expected to consult party structures before major decisions, then those party structures must themselves operate transparently and democratically.
Otherwise, party supremacy risks becoming leadership supremacy.
The issue is not whether institutions should be stronger than individuals. Most democrats would agree with that proposition. The issue is whether the institutions being strengthened are genuinely democratic or merely mechanisms through which a small group of individuals can exercise control.
This distinction matters greatly.
Millions of Nigerians who supported reform-oriented political movements did so because they desired a departure from the opaque and transactional politics that have characterized many traditional political parties. They did not seek to replace one power structure with another.
The future credibility of the NDC will therefore depend less on the resolutions contained in its communiqué and more on the conduct of its leadership.
Will party tickets be awarded through transparent and competitive processes?
Will allegations of financial impropriety be independently investigated?
Will dissenting voices be protected?
Will ordinary members have meaningful influence over party decisions?
Will accountability apply equally to national leaders and grassroots members?
These are the questions that will determine whether the NDC is truly building democratic institutions or merely constructing a new hierarchy of power.
Party supremacy, by itself, is not a democratic virtue.
Transparency is.
Accountability is.
Internal democracy is.
Without these foundations, supremacy becomes little more than a demand for obedience.
And in a democracy, obedience should never be valued more highly than accountability.