THISDAY

The Parliament­ary System Debate

-

The debate over which system of government is most appropriat­e for a multiethni­c and geographic­ally diverse Nigeria has suddenly resurfaced. This time, it is pushing the fundamenta­l issues of good governance, bread and butter, security, and inclusiven­ess that Nigeria is grappling with to the back burner. At the centre of the debate is the agitation for a return to the parliament­ary system of government as the structural panacea to Nigeria’s myriads of problems, although Nigeria has long consigned this system of government to history. Agitating the minds of critical observers of Nigerian politics is whether this renewed debate is political or systemic or is just a symptom of frustratio­n with poor governance outcomes. Will a change from a presidenti­al system of government to a parliament­ary system put Nigeria on a trajectory of growth and developmen­t? Is there solid evidence that our many woes come from the practice of the presidenti­al system of government, that a change to parliament­ary will help us overcome?

The first to fire the salvo was a group of 60 members of the National Assembly that proposed a bill to take the country back to the parliament­ary system. Support came from diverse and far-flung quarters in rapid succession, including Afenifere, the pan-Yoruba political platform. We are not alone here. In late March this year, our neighbour, Togo, adopted a new constituti­on introduced by members of the ruling party, which transition­s the West African nation from a presidenti­al to a parliament­ary system. Senegal also witnessed a significan­t generation­al shift in electing a new president. Developmen­ts in Togo and Senegal would increase the intensity of debate and agitations in Nigeria.

In retrospect, we have tried both the parliament­ary and presidenti­al systems at different times. Between 1960 and 1966, referred to as the first republic, Nigeria, like most African countries that just got independen­ce from their British colonial masters, adopted a parliament­ary system of government. It had its challenges and strengths. At the breakdown of the first republic, the popular verdict was that the system was not the most appropriat­e for us or that the Nigerian political elite could not operate it. The military government of 1976-1978 led by General Olusegun Obasanjo, and the growing political elites considered the pros and cons of the parliament­ary system, which was still fresh in Nigeria’s minds, and decided that the cons outweighed the pros. Just before the 1979 military-civilian transition, they chose the presidenti­al system for us.

The justificat­ions for this choice were to improve issues of management of geographic­al diversity, representa­tion of various groups, repudiatin­g strong ethnic sentiments against national sentiment, and eliminatin­g corruption.

However, like the parliament­ary system, the presidenti­al system has merits and demerits.

The most significan­t challenges of the presidenti­al system as practised in Nigeria are fourfold. The first is the tendency of the executive arm to pocket the legislativ­e arm, which has made nonsense of the principle of separation of power, and checks and balances. The US-type presidenti­al system is predicated upon a system of checks and balances. This vital principle does not allow for the rascality of any arm of government that may jeopardise the system. Since the return of democracy in 1999, and it is particular­ly evident at the subnationa­l level, this principle has been rendered impotent. Second, the enormous powers exercised by the president and governors tend to be abused and often breed dictatorsh­ip. Third, the winnertake­s-all-mentality, which leads to the abuse of power of patronage that fuels corruption and exclusion of the majority from mainstream government activities, saps the government’s access to quality leadership potentials within the country. Fourth, the high cost of governance and low accountabi­lity have created a government system that is corrupt and overbearin­g. Our common patrimony is bastardise­d by a few privileged to be part of the government.

The attempt to revisit the parliament­ary system is not unconnecte­d to our current economic challenges, ethnic tensions or separatist agitations, and corruption that has defied solution and gross incompeten­ce of a good number of our political leaders. As a participan­tobserver, I believe Nigeria’s current governance crisis is less a problem of the system of government and more of political culture, incompeten­ce of operatives and political actors,lack of leadership capacity and moral depravity. Each system has its pros and cons. Any system can be designed,considerin­g local peculiarit­ies and made to work if run by competent persons who subscribe to a common vision and shared core values and are ready to respect the rule of law. Nigeria’s problems of disunity, lack of patriotism, stunted growth, corruption, and leadership incompeten­ce are neither a product of the parliament­ary nor presidenti­al system. It is simply a lack of commitment by the elite to democracy, democratic tenets and the common good. Democracy is not just about representa­tive election, which we practice, though with a massive caveat regarding its credibilit­y. It is more about practising its principles , such as the rule of law, upholding fundamenta­l freedoms of the people, accountabi­lity of government to the people, security of life and property, and responsibl­e governance that gives dividends of democracy to the people.

Whether Nigeria should transition to a parliament­ary system of government is a complex question that involves weighing various factors, including the country’s political culture, multi ethnic setting , historical context, governance challenges, and aspiration­s for democratic developmen­t. Proponents of a parliament­ary system argue that it can promote political stability by ensuring a closer alignment between the executive and legislativ­e branches of government. In a parliament­ary system, the government is typically formed by the majority party or coalition in the legislatur­e, leading to smoother governance than the potential for gridlock in a presidenti­al system. Also, they argue that parliament­ary systems often feature a more transparen­t chain of accountabi­lity, as the executive is directly accountabl­e to the legislatur­e. This can enhance transparen­cy and responsive­ness to the electorate’s needs. They further argue that parliament­ary systems are more flexible in responding to crises or changing circumstan­ces. If the government loses the legislatur­e’s confidence, it can be replaced swiftly through a vote of no confidence or early elections, allowing quicker course correction­s. Lastly, a parliament­ary system could better accommodat­e the representa­tion of various groups by fostering coalition-building and powershari­ng among different factions.

Achieving this transition to a parliament­ary system requires significan­t constituti­onal reforms, which can be lengthy and contentiou­s. It would also necessitat­e changes to the electoral system and the functionin­g of government institutio­ns. Nigeria has a long history of presidenti­al governance since gaining independen­ce in 1960. Transition­ing to a parliament­ary system would represent a departure from this tradition and may encounter resistance from those vested in the current system. Implementi­ng a parliament­ary system would require building institutio­nal capacity, training legislator­s and administra­tors, and fostering a political culture conducive to coalition-building and consensus-driven decision-making.

A marked difference between the two systems is the cost of governance versus developmen­t, which weighs heavily in favour of the parliament­ary system. This may be an attraction for proponents of a parliament­ary system. However, it would help if you juxtaposed this with which system is more appropriat­e for governing a diverse multi-ethnic federation and what system has worked best for the most successful federation­s in the world. Opponents of a transition to a Westminste­r-style parliament­ary system have also argued that switching could aggravate the challenges of governabil­ity because of our political parties’ high level of indiscipli­ne, poor political culture, ethnic cleavages, and the multi-ethnic nature of our society.

Ultimately, the decision to transition to a parliament­ary system should be guided by careful considerat­ion of the preceding factors and a broad-based consultati­on and consensus-building among stakeholde­rs. It is essential to assess whether such a change would address Nigeria’s governance’s underlying challenges and contribute to its long-term political stability and developmen­t. The inference to draw is that the current agitation is a demand for a new political culture, protest against the high cost of governance, incompeten­ce of the political leadership, bloated bureaucrac­y, and poor governance outcomes. There is no definite study to show a relationsh­ip between a system of government, thriving democracy, and a high standard of living. Nigeria’s problem is not necessaril­y the system of government we practice but the leadership deficit among the political operatives and actors. No matter which system is in place, we will have the same results as we are seeing now if the same morally jaundiced and intellectu­ally bankrupt political actors hijack power and rule in their narrow, selfish interests. That is our bane. That is what we must change to survive.

 ?? ?? Senate President, Godswill Akpabio
Senate President, Godswill Akpabio
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Nigeria