About two weeks ago, 60 lawmakers in the House of Representatives made a call for a transition from the presidential system of government to the parliamentary system. The number of lawmakers in support of the bill has continued to rise since then.
The legislators anchored their call on the need to reduce cost, as according to them, the presidential system is more expensive and to engender what they called robust debates.
In pursuance of this, three bills, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Alteration) Bill 2024, HB.1115, HB.1116 and HB.1117, were sponsored by the Minority Leader, Kingsley Chinda, and 59 others.
Addressing the media, the lawmakers’ spokesperson, Abdulsamad Dasuki, said, “Over the years, the imperfections of the presidential system of government have become glaring to all 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.”
Dasuki went on to say, “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 the excessive powers vested in the members of the executive who are appointees and not directly accountable to the people.”
Stakeholders across the country immediately started responding to the issue. The Pan Yoruba group, Afenifere, through a press statement by its Publicity Secretary, Comrade Jare Ajayi, declared its support and noted that Nigeria’s socio-political problem “goes beyond the system of government being run. It weighs more heavily on the structure. That is why we are insisting that the country must be restructured. Any tinkering with the constitution that fails to tinker with the present structure would be cosmetic.”
Also, Northern elder statesman, Professor Ango Abdullahi, supported the call to return Nigeria to the parliamentary system of government, noting that the parliamentary system as practiced in the 1960s was not given sufficient time to thrive in the country.
Abdullahi, who was a member of parliament during the First Republic, said the system ensured more accountability and quality leadership, adding that the parliamentary system worked for all, and lamented that the current presidential system of government had failed to yield the desired results.
We at Daily Trust call for caution on this enterprise that the lawmakers are embarking on. Most Nigerians will agree with the arguments canvassed against the retention of the presidential system we currently operate in the country. Our experience with the system shows that it is hideously expensive. There are three levels of government: local, state and federal. Aside from the local government tier where there exists only the legislature and the executive, the state and federal levels have three independent arms: executive, legislature and judiciary. These three tiers of government and the many elected and appointed public officials gulp a lot of money in overheads and running costs.
In theory, the parliamentary system, where there is a fusion of both the executive and legislative arms of government, with cabinet ministers being members of parliament, there is a case of comparatively lesser cost in operation. But in the present Nigerian context, where politicians serve themselves first before their electorate, this may not necessarily be true.
In fact, the system could even be more costly as parliamentarians can use impeachment threats against the prime minister and premiers to extort more largesse from the government treasury.
And while the failings of the presidential system seem to have brought back our nostalgia for the parliamentary system, we must not lose sight of some of the issues that confronted us under the system which was in practice during the First Republic. One of the issues was that it was imposed on us at the twilight of the British colonial experience without allowing time for deeper understanding and practice. Thus unlike the practice in the original parliamentary setup in Britain, where members stuck to party line and affiliation based on ideological conviction, the parliamentary system in Nigeria witnessed members of parties defecting to other parties even at the heat of debates on the floor of parliament. More often, this happened not due to ideological differences, but tribal allegiances. And this was very much a contributing factor to the failure of the parliamentary system which we are now angling to return to.
Looking at these factors, we believe that it is the attitude and convictions of Nigerian politicians that should change rather than the system. As the National Assembly members are lamenting the cost of the presidential system, it is not lost on Nigerians that not a single one of them has had cause to politely decline some of the unjustifiable expenses on members of the legislature, especially at these very challenging times.
Also, there is no reason why lawmakers cannot have robust debates as witnessed under the parliamentary system of government. It must also be stated that the parliamentary system of government only lasted six years; that is too short a period to adjudge it the best system of government for Nigeria.
Accordingly, we believe that what we should focus on as a country at this point is how to make the current system work. A system is what its leaders and people make of it.
