Yes is a dangerous word in a democracy

Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, speaker of the House of Representatives, was recently quoted as saying that his people did not send him to the house to fight the executive. He was right. They did not send him there to become the speaker either. All they did was send him there to join the other members in the 360-seat lower legislative house of the national assembly to make laws for the good governance of our country.

But fortune smiled on him; he became the president’s man and consequently, the anointed and chosen one for his present high position in our national politics. All positions, high or low, have responsibilities. The nature of the position determines how the holder discharges those responsibilities. Getting into a position is not the end of the story. Holding unto it is the tough challenge. To meet the challenge, men and women are driven to seek ways and means of survival. To put it another way, they fight all comers and quite often, given the nature of politics and power, even their godfathers, viciously. No one need telling that politics is a dirty game. The late Spiro Agnew, I think it was, who said that those who are put off by that should go into politics with their own soup and wash it clean. Not many dry cleaners would accept that job.

I am sure the speaker knows only too well that leading 359 men and women from different political parties all of whom are mouthing their subscription to different political ideologies; men and women with different educational, ethnic, religious and socio-economic backgrounds and therefore different outlooks on life; each of whom came to the house with his own people’s agenda or mandate for a bigger slice of the national cake than others, not excluding constituency projects, is more complex and complicated than eating my favourite meal, amala with ewedu soup.

These men and women are driven by their individual, ethnic, political or religious interests. Each of them is capable of doing or saying things what could force the speaker to occasionally approach the executive with a cudgel in hand. And each of them expects the speaker to protect his political interests. Of the three branches of government, only the legislature packs full-blooded and unapologetic politicians.

The legislature at federal and state levels is naturally a house of conflicts. Come to think of it, it is also the most powerful of the three branches of government. The president and the state governors, despite their enormous powers, must submit to the will of the legislature to enact laws or obtain approval to borrow money or spend money from the public coffers, including their annual budgets. An institution this powerful cannot be ignorant of its power. It can wield it any how it chooses to get its way with the executive. Chalk that up as conflict area number one.

The executive does not see itself as the first among equals; it sees itself as the first among unequals. It is willing to persuade or purchase or punish the legislature to subordinate it to its will. In other words, the executive not being unmindful of the power of the legislature takes its own advice and makes babban riga with pockets large enough to contain the legislators. It is common sense to trust only the man in your pocket. Chalk that up as conflict area number two.

Law-makers know that surviving in babban riga pockets could be an existential threat. They fight back either to get out of the pockets or not be pushed in there in the first place. Chalk that as conflict area number three.

The responsibility for keeping the legislature out of the pocket of the executive rests, in this case, with the speaker of the house. If he must lead, he must fight. He must fight for the independence of the house, if nothing else. He can, of course, choose to be a good boy and willingly drive himself and his members into those babban riga pockets. But the consequences could be dire for good governance. No political leader is immune to the virus of power grab. Given the slightest opportunity, every democratic ruler would rather turn himself into a dictator or a monarchical president.

Relationship between the executive and the legislature is quite often not smooth. It zigs and zags and could be both sour and hostile. A harmonious executive-legislative relationship is desirable but it must not be allowed to degenerate to a point at which the legislature loses its independence. When that happens, the legislature sells out itself and becomes a rubber stamp of the executive. A weak or weakened legislature loses its capacity to live up to its constitutional billing. The business of government in our form of government is best carried out if the three arms of government enjoy a measure of internal independence and can freely question one another’s intentions.

The executive-legislative relationship in the 8th national assembly was hostile and really sad. Perhaps, it is wise not to walk that path again. But it should not be at the expense of robust debates on bills brought before the national assembly. The sheer desire to please the executive appears to trump the legislative responsibilities right now. It could be an increasing source of worry because it is deleterious to our national socio-political health. Bills sent to the assembly are promptly passed and signed into law by the president. The speed at which the 2020 appropriation bill sailed through could not be attributed to better work by the executive. It grew out of a desire not to rock the boat; not to be like the leaders of the 8th national assembly. Yes has thus become the only response to executive requests.

In a recent column, titled “National Assembly and the President: Please start fighting,” Professor Jibrin Ibrahim noted that “virtually all requests and bills from the president have received quick and favourable response from the National Assembly. My worry is that the relationship might be too cosy and the National Assembly could begin to act as state assemblies. If that were to happen, their capacity to contribute positively to national development would be even more diminished than it currently is.”

My point too. We must pull back from tethering our future to the three-letter word: YES. It is dangerous in a democracy, a form of government that thrives on healthy tug of war between yes and no.