Much ado about governance system

A group of lawmakers in the House of Representatives recently initiated a bill to revert Nigeria back to parliamentary model of governance from the presidential system presently being operated. The 60 representatives, who tagged themselves the Parliamentary Group, introduced a constitution alteration bill for transition to parliamentary system of government at House plenary penultimate Wednesday. They thereby stoked a national debate on the desirability or otherwise of the proposed model, which was what the country started with in its nationhood experience but discarded upon the collapse of the First Republic in 1966.

Led by Minority Leader Kingsley Chinda of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP, Rivers), the group comprises lawmakers cutting across party lines including the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). At a briefing of journalists following presentation of the bill, a spokesman for the group, Abdussamad Dasuki (PDP, Sokoto), voiced frustration of group members with huge costs associated with the presidential system and overbearing powers of the president. “Over the years, the imperfections of the presidential system of government have become glaring, despite several alterations to the constitution to address the shortcomings of a system that has denied the nation the opportunity to attain its full potential,” he said, adding: “Among these imperfections are the high cost of governance, leaving fewer resources for crucial areas like infrastructure, education and healthcare, and consequently hindering the nation’s development progress; and excessive powers vested in members of the executive, who are appointees and not directly accountable to the people.”

The bill passed first reading in the green chamber of the National Assembly (NASS) and is expected to be gazetted for second reading, before being referred to the House’s ad-hoc panel on constitution review for further legislative action. The timeline proposed for the model switch is 2031, and Dasuki made it clear that the group’s intention is to stimulate national conversation from now towards realising that end. He came from a familiar path in recent history. In December 2018, barely three months to the 2019 general election, a group of 71 lawmakers in the green chamber initiated a similar bill seeking return to parliamentary rule. Besides Dasuki, other lawmakers in the group include Nicholas Ossai (PDP, Delta), Tahir Monguno  (APC, Borno), Ossey Prestige (All Progressives Grand Alliance, Abia) and Chinda (PDP, Rivers). Dasuki at the time said the bill was deliberately brought in the thick of electioneering so that Nigerians could ask questions during the campaigns. That bill died with the eight NASS and is apparently being resuscitated early in the 10th assembly to allow ample time for its processing.

Arguments plied for the previous bill are of the same species as the current one. The lawmakers said parliamentary system of government would promote economic growth and development in the country. “We…feel that the parliamentary system of government promulgated by the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 is the best for Nigeria since the presidential system has reduced us to the poverty capital of the world,” the lawmakers had said, arguing that parliamentary system helps in quick passage of economic bills due to the fusion of power that it entails. “Studies have shown that countries run by presidential regimes consistently produce lower output growth, higher and more volatile inflation, and greater income inequality relative to those under parliamentary ones,” they argued, adding: “Presidential regimes consistently produce less favourable macroeconomic outcomes which prevail in a wide range of circumstances, for example in Nigeria. Due to the excessive powers domiciled in one man under the presidential system, consensus building that is often required for economic decision is always lacking. The level of liability and volatility of presidential system makes it difficult to achieve economic objectives.” According to them, parliamentary systems promote inclusion and collaboration that are “critical for equality of income distribution and opportunities.”

“The trouble with Nigeria isn’t the system of government but the people operating whatever model is in place.” 

Nigeria operated the parliamentary system pre-independence and in the First Republic before the 15th January, 1966 military coup which truncated that republic. Thereafter, the country came under a 13-year-long military interregnum. Precedent to restoration of democracy by way of the Second Republic in 1979, a constitutional conference of 49 ‘wise men’ led by the late legal luminary, Chief Rotimi Williams, in 1978 proposed the presidential model for the country, which formed the framework for the constitution that then outgoing military regime of Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo handed down. This constitution has been periodically amended but not reformatted from the presidential framework.

Unlike the presidential model where you have a president as the head of state, with separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial arms of government, the parliamentary system has a prime minister, who is a member of the legislative arm and chosen by parliamentarians from among themselves, serving as the head of government. Under the parliamentary system – particularly the British model that Nigeria is familiar with – the executive branch derives legitimacy and authority from the legislative branch because other than the prime minister tapped from the parliament, ministers of government are also parliamentarians first voted by the electorate into constituency seats from where they get chosen into ministerial offices. Because the prime minister is nominated from the parliament, he is directly accountable to the parliament and has only vicarious accountability to the electorate, such that if parliament votes to remove him as premier, he would yet retain his constituency seat in the legislature until the electorate vote him out or recall him from the seat. Ministers of government under the parliamentary model are as well directly accountable to the legislature; but they also have vicarious accountability to the people because unlike in the presidential system where ministers were appointed at the sole pleasure of the president and derived no mandate from voters, ministers under the parliamentary system were first elected to constituency seats by voters. This is unlike the presidential system where members of the executive arm typically don’t belong to the legislature and vice-versa; though there is a point of convergence in the United States where the vice president is the titular president of the country’s senate and exercises voting right in that chamber.

Proponents of the parliamentary system would argue that besides close interconnection between the executive and legislative arms, which allows for efficient decision-making and policy implementation, the model is less expensive because officers of the executive arm are sourced from the legislative arm and aren’t add-ons to government bureaucracy as would bloat the overhead. Opponents would, however, point to Nigeria’s experience whereby the parliamentary system polarised the country in the First Republic, especially as the prime minister was chosen by parliament and did not have to be acceptable to the majority of citizens. Besides, a favourite argument by proponents that the parliamentary model is not prone to corruption was not borne out by Nigeria’s practice of the system in the First Republic. The collapse of that republic owed in large part to political instability that resulted from electoral malpractices and disregard for rule of law, such that when the military struck in 1966, they cited endemic corruption as a major motivation for their intervention. Major Kaduna Nzeogwu, who was one of the coup leaders, said: “The aim of the Revolutionary Council is to establish a strong, united and prosperous nation free from corruption and internal strife.” He added: “Our enemies are the political profiteers, the swindlers, men in high and low places who seek bribes and demand 10 per cent…those that have corrupted our society…”

Just like the Parliamentary Group wanted, the proposed constitution amendment bill sparked a debate. Supporters like Yoruba socio-cultural group, Afenifere, not only want parliamentary system restored but canvassed that commencement date be 2027 rather than 2031. Middle Belt Forum (MBF) chieftain, Dr. Pogu Bitrus, said while the parliamentary system would be cheaper for Nigeria to run, the presidential system currently in place could yet serve the country well if adapted to its peculiarities. Kano tycoon, Aminu Dantata, believed parliamentary system would be the answer to Nigeria’s problems while a civil society group, the Parliamentary Advocacy Network (PAN), argued that the model isn’t suitable for Nigeria’s diversity and complexity. There was broad agreement, though, that the country’s wellbeing lies in implementing true federalism.

I would argue that the trouble with Nigeria isn’t the system of government but the people operating whatever model is in place. Reform the political culture positively, and whatever system we run will serve the country well.