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.
No comments:
Post a Comment