Party Primaries and the Quest for Accountability in Governance in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern democracy highlights the importance of political parties both in agenda-setting and in displaying party aspirants from whom the electorates must choose. This paper examines the processes of candidate selection against the backdrop of demand for accountability from the political officeholders in Nigeria. Interestingly representative democracy builds on the theory that the citizens are in control of the process through which their representatives are elected but empirical evidence suggests diversities in the selection process. Nigeria has experienced about twenty-two years of uninterrupted democratic rule but each successive electoral period highlights a display of citizen’s discontentment with their representatives. This phenomenon raises a fundamental question about how their representatives were ab-ini-tio selected. There has been a paucity of research on how the conduct of party primaries set the contour for the people-oriented governance in Nigeria. This paper examines a candidate’s selection within parties and its implication for accountability. It argues that the structure of party primaries in Nigeria cannot but empower party bigwigs to impose aspirants that will undermine engendering accountability in governance. It argues for strong institutional mechanisms and civil society’s role to prevent elected representatives from doing the bidding of their godfathers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".