Political Restructuring 3

IN considering the way out of the quagmire of abuse of the political system, the problem is not so much about the absence of informed analysis or deficiency of prescriptions for overcoming the economic and political inertia of the country, as the absence of political will by successive leaders to do the right thing. It is clear that the country’s problems centre on the primary issue of co-existence among Nigeria’s component nationalities; the institutionalisation of political foundation of governance such as the unit of the federation, the super-structural framework/system of government, internal democracy within the parties, effective policing, controlled bureaucracy/reasonable and sustainable cost of governance; and the definitive resolution of relations of production, especially the issue of resource control. Although it is challenging for the governing elite to take the initiative and move the country forward, they have so far shirked this patriotic responsibility. In other words, they have proven incapable of doing so, despite the public’s fulfillment of its historical role of analysing and prescribing viable solutions to the country’s numerous challenges.

In spite of the call for a national dialogue, the National Assembly is inclined to amending the Constitution, which actually amounts to putting the cart before the horse. However, it may be useful for the legislators, in their bid to amend the Constitution (a task fitting for a constituent Assembly due to its ramifications) to consider various factors.

There is a near consensus that the country cannot continue to be run in the usual routine. Dithering is counter-productive, while restructuring of the country is imperative. There is no logic in creating more states. State creation, as it should by now be clear to all, has only accentuated the ethnic and other forms of primordial fault-lines across the country. The existing 36 states are not financially solvent to stand as state governments and they remain a drain on the national coffers as the nation continues to fund moribund and unproductive state bureaucracies. It is imperative that cost of governance is whittled down to the barest minimum in order to unleash resources for priority development projects in the country. If state creation has become the obsession of some rent-seeking elite, the right thing to do at this historical juncture is to merge the existing states into convenient and workable units by the engrossment of the six geopolitical zones as federating units. In addition, introducing part-time legislators as it is practised in some countries will be invaluable to cutting the cost of governance.

A related issue on the front burner of national discuss is the desirability or otherwise of state police. In a proper federation, state police is certainly inevitable. This should be a long-term project but in the meantime, a halfway arrangement that will lead to the creation of state police is suggested. First, the existing methodology of deploying the bulk of the police to their indigenous states should be constitutionalised. Second, both state and federal laws should be enforced. Third, structures of checks and balances, which insulate the police from partisan politics and control by political office holders, should be established.

The prevailing democracy suffers a great deal of deficit due to the absence of internal democracy within the existing major political parties. Their affairs are underlined by arbitrariness and imposition of candidates qualified either as ‘positive intervention’ or ‘principle of consensus’. The country is replete with instances of contempt and absolute disregard for decency, order and indeed the rule of law by political actors. Much of the bitterness seen in Nigerian politics is a consequence of the absence of internal democracy within the party. It also accounts a great deal for the poor governance output everywhere. Internal democracy bothers on the democratic principle of legitimacy, which inheres in the principle of consent. Therefore, it cannot be trivialised and should be operationalised. Democratic consolidation requires space for freedom of political preferences, free competition between aspiring political leaders and conducts within legitimate institutions.

Revenue allocation has been an essential element of the Nigerian federation, as well as a source of tension in the political system. While revenue allocation has gone through a range of changes, it is by no means a settled matter. The language of financial discuss in the country today is ‘resource control’. An unencumbered Nigerian federation should allow federating units to control resources in their domains based on the principle of 100 per cent derivation with taxes paid to the centre. Federating units should have full control of whatever natural resources that they are endowed with by providence. Available statistics has shown that there is hardly any part of the country without any natural endowment. This will obviate the overt no-man’s-land mentality with which the national patrimony is viewed and the consequent pathologies of Dutch disease and resource curse. Truly, it will engender a new form of production relations in the country. The war against corruption and the entrenched waywardness of leaders and followers must be continuous and total. Lastly, it is simultaneously imperative that whatever new clauses the legislators intend to introduce into the 1999 Constitution by way of amendment, must be subjected to the popular affirmation of the citizenry through a referendum.

Political Restructuring 2

GIVEN the structural dysfunction of the Nigerian state and the criticisms against a presidential system, critics have continually looked forward to a return to the parliamentary system of government as a viable alternative. The call was upbeat in the voice of some of the founding fathers of the Nigerian Republic, especially Chief Anthony Enahoro.  Until his death a few years ago, he had called continually for a return to the parliamentary system to attain what he called ‘equitocracy’ within the polity. The bug has also caught up with some contemporary politicians whose views have already been acknowledged. The pertinent question is: what is a parliamentary system, and what makes it attractive?

A parliamentary system is a structure of government often headed by a prime minister elected from the party with a majority of seats in the parliament. Beside the prime minister, there is a ceremonial Head of State or President. Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe played that role while Alhaji Tafawa Balewa was the Prime Minister in Nigeria’s parliamentary system of the First Republic. Indeed, there is a somewhat fusion of power between the Executive and the Legislature as the cabinet members are often drawn from the parliament. The cabinet or a single member can be removed by means of a vote of no confidence. Indeed, the Executive arm of government derives its legitimacy from the parliament and to which it is accountable. A parliamentary system may either be unicameral or bicameral depending on the prescription of the constitution.

Under a parliamentary system, ministers must win election to become ministers; there is an inbuilt oppositional role, complemented with a shadow cabinet, which nurtures the value of loyal opposition. Opposition is able to speak to public values and subject to no intimidation or exercise in vain. The merit of a vote of no confidence is immeasurable in the parliamentary system. As it was then practised in Nigeria, the regions had control over resources. With a minimised bureaucracy, it features a reduced cost of governance, especially when compared with the presidential system. Also, there is an accentuated ghost of an alternative government by virtue of the shadow cabinet that engages critically with the incumbent government. The arrangement allows room for supervision of agents of government than a presidential system, which exhibits concentration of power. The prime ministerial question time is the acid test of the parliamentary system. The prime minister and leader of the opposition are brought into direct exchange or confrontation, which makes for more accountability.

Despite the foregoing merits, those who do not see anything wrong with the prevailing presidential system, argue that, the claim to value in the area of corruption and curbing of Executive overbear is a myth. As it was practised in the pre-independence years and the first few post-independence years, the premiers were also overbearing, and none was ever removed by a vote of no confidence. In other words, there was no making and breaking of government as it were. Indeed, public officials were also corrupt and the January 15 putschists underlined the point when they declared: “Our enemies are the political profiteers, the swindlers, the men in high and low places that seek bribes and demand 10 per cent….. Those that make the country look big for nothing before international circles, those that have corrupted our society….”  Daniel Roselle, a former Professor of History at State University of New York, who made some observations about Nigeria’s domestic instability and the wide variation in the standard of living noted that, “in 1966, the average income per capita in Nigeria was about $80 a month. Yet, each Nigerian minister received a free house valued up to $80,000, an auto allowance of over $200 a month, and other privileges.”

The economy without doubt has a corresponding relationship to the shape of politics. If agriculture fuelled the venality of public officials then, petro-dollars have quadrupled that vice under a presidential system of government.  In the Fourth Republic, it has produced a bizarre practice in which the machineries of the parties are in the hands of the state governors with an iron grip over state resources. This is by far the most fundamental contradiction of the Fourth Republic. The party, the engine room of modern democracy, is emasculated by those who came to office under its platform.

However, on a balance sheet, either the presidential system or parliamentary system has its claims to value, and the value in each is not equiponderant to the other; somewhere, the balance tilts. The decision to stick to the status quo, or involve a hybrid system will be decided by Nigerians. The greater duty, of course, is how to make the choice work; and this demands a lot of responsibilities from all citizens. But then, there must be a way forward.

Political Restructuring

THE continuing reflections over the necessity or otherwise of a fundamental change in the country’s system of administration show the existence in government of an ailment that is urgently in need of a cure. The debate was lately underlined in the activities surrounding Nigeria’s 52nd independence anniversary, which provided both statesmen and public intellectuals with a vent to reflect on the health of the country.  The views of four prominent politicians and those that may be called organic intellectuals have added more importance to the search for ideal system for a country that is stuck in a political quagmire since its independence from Britain in 1960. Indeed, the debate for system change is a function of the disillusionment with the status quo.

Prof. Ango Abdullahi, former Vice Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University called for the jettisoning of the presidential system of government for its inherent financial burden and vulnerability to corruption. He advocated a preference for a parliamentary system of government, which the country practiced in the first republic, truncated by the military in 1966. He further prescribed a structural encasement for a parliamentary system by a call for a return to the old four regions or the constitutionalisation of the unofficial six geopolitical zones as units of a Nigerian federation. The Chairman of the Action Congress of Nigeria, Chief Bisi Akande called Nigeria a ‘mere geographical unit’, apparently re-choeing the statements of Chief Obafemi Awolowo in his Path to Nigerian Freedom while reiterating the need for true federalism. Similarly, former Health Minister, Prof. ABC Nwosu, called for true federalism and the conversion of the six geopolitical zones into federating units of the country. In climatic bent, the former Vice President Atiku Abubakar called for the adoption of a parliamentary system of government and the restructuring of the country along the six geopolitical zones.

These views clearly indicate that all is not well with the presidential system of government which Nigeria adopted in 1979. It is even more symptomatic of the inability of the country to attain what some scholars have called ‘the rightfulness of the unit’. This necessarily engenders some questions: what is a presidential system of government? Why did Nigeria adopt this system in 1979? What are its contradictions? Is ditching the system the solution to our many problems? Has the country a constitutional problem or human integrity problem?

The presidential system is a governmental arrangement underpinned by the principles of separation of power among three key tiers of government, namely, the executive, legislature and the judiciary, and in which the executive branch is led by a president who is both head of state and head of government. The executive enjoys a great deal of independence that under normal circumstances, cannot be sacked by the parliament. This is probably why the presidential system is also called an executive government as it confers an exclusive range of power on the president. Under a presidential democracy, the president is not a dictator but bound by the rule of law and the basic laws of the country. A presidential system has some other characteristics considered advantageous for a plural society like Nigeria, for the reason that it has security of tenure with clearly defined terms of office unlike the parliamentary system where the prime minister could be booted out through a vote of no confidence.  Besides, a presidential system allows for a degree of freedom in decision-making.

Naturally, the virtue of separation of powers in a presidential system in which the various arms of government are clearly compartmentalised allows for horizontal accountability. In this country, the ingredient of the presidential system permeates other sub-national governments such as the state and local governments.

The overriding objective for adopting the presidential system in 1979 was the desire to build a strong centre in order to avert the centrifugal strains that made the civil war possible in the first decade of the country’s post-colonial existence. An additional reason was to allow whoever would lead the country opportunity to solicit for votes and win a measure of national legitimacy. This preference has not healed, of course, the many contradictions of the Nigerian state. Cries of marginalization have persisted along with hegemonic politicking. Above all, the other components of the system such as unproductive raft of states in place of the former four regions have remained a drain on national resources and a constraint to national development. The power that presidentialism places in the hands of the executive is enormous. The president has an overwhelming control over national resources. But there is so much arbitrariness and the opposition is often muzzled, in the centre, the states and local governments. In this political climate, presidential system of government is synonymous with corruption. Incumbent executives misappropriate state resources while development is either absent on the agenda or takes the backwaters of priorities. Persons without mandates or electoral backing are appointed into high profile public positions accountable only to themselves and perhaps their principals. Competition for political offices are, in the words of a former Nigerian leader, a do-or-die affair.

Some Nigerians who have pondered over the country’s condition have argued that there is nothing wrong with the various forms of government, whether parliamentary or presidential system. They argue that the country has a problem of human integrity. The point is driven home that the systems work well in their native countries, namely, Britain and the United States of America.  Nigerians are corrupt and the human deficits are transferred unto the political institutions to create an institutional integrity problem for the country. Equally, the structure of a government is a reflection of the structure of the economy and unless there is change in the relations of production which currently rewards indolence and allows for all forms of accumulation of state resources outside genuine production processes, whatever system adopted will fail. Then, the question: does a parliamentary system hold the magic wand?