In normal times and decent climes, it is not unusual to describe the legislative branch in a republic as a club of responsible and patriotic men and women. It is abnormal to compare the representatives of the people to a cult of self-serving men and women whose fundamental approach to governance is to look out for loyalists to protect or promote and adversaries to punish or renounce.
But a club of responsible men and women sometimes degenerates into a cult of sycophants, or worse, paranoid schemers whose singular objective is the elimination of the supposed outsider or disloyal insider and the protection and promotion of the team players within.
The Senate is the upper house of our legislative branch and it is appropriate to focus on it as the eye of the National Assembly. The Senate of modern republics has a history that dates to the ancient Romans. But the modern senate cannot be more starkly different than its progenitor. First, while Roman senators were appointed by an elected official of the magistracy, many senates of the modern era are elected.
Second, while there was a requirement of independent wealth for Roman republic senators, modern senators only need to satisfy the requirement of age, education, and sound health. Roman senators were expected to be wealthy because they worked without pay and were also expected to spend their wealth for the good of the state. That is unrealistic for our modern senators who expect their membership of the senate to improve their economic status.
Third, while Roman senators were required to be of impeccable moral character, and corruption was an impeachable offense, we are aware of the humanity of modern senators and so we do not appear to expect sainthood as their qualification.
With sacrifice of wealth and time for the welfare of the state comes respect for the institution of senate and individual senators throughout the Roman republic. Even with this positive point, however, it should be obvious that the Roman senate was far from being a democratic institution. It was unelected, and it was only as powerful as the consuls, or later the emperor, allowed it to be.
What interests me in the comparison is the moral fiber of one versus the ethical lapse of the other. How do I mean?
The Roman senate was a club of morally conscious patricians who not only guided their integrity by enforcing the moral code of membership, it was also a collection of patriotic citizens working for the good of the state without focusing on their self-interest. The Roman senator sacrificed his material wealth for the promotion of the state with an eye on legacy and immortality. What legacy do our modern senators set their eyes to?
As it ought to be in our world of 24/7 news coverage, the 8th National Assembly in general, and the Senate in particular, has been in the news since its inception for reasons noble and repugnant. Can we ever forget the infamous leadership intrigue that ushered in the new NASS in 2015?
Since then, it has been one game of gotcha after another. Faced with judicial investigations, the Senate President has been subject of personal humiliation for which his supporters blame the executive branch, further souring the relationship between the two branches. For a pound of flesh, NASS has asserted its authority in various ways, including withholding its advice and consent power over appointments or budget approval. This political football has not been helpful in laying the foundation for legacy-enhancing legislations that could stand the test of time and enter the 8th NASS in the book of national glory.
Now is the time to write its own history, which is what really matters for politicians with eyes on legacy. How might the 8th NASS leave an enduring legacy? This was the takeaway from the message so articulately and passionately delivered to the leadership of NASS some weeks ago by some national elders across the zones of the federation. The National Assembly must take up the mantle of leadership in the matter of restructuring.
Our having devolution of power, the most that APC promised the electorate in 2015 in the matter of restructuring, depends on the pleasure of three institutions: the presidency, the National Assembly, and state legislatures. The first two are controlled wholly by the ruling party. The third, state legislatures, is controlled substantially by the ruling party given that 24 of 36 states are controlled by APC.
The committee on restructuring set up by the ruling party has submitted its report recommending substantial devolution of powers from the federal to the states. It also recommended the establishment of state police.
To date, it has been a Herculean task trying to ascertain the pleasure of the presidency in the matter of restructuring in general, and devolution in particular. Now it is becoming clearer that putting our faith in the presidency to lead that effort is a mistake. The president’s widely reported VOA Hausa Service interview from Washington DC is unambiguous. He does not think highly of state police on two grounds. First, in his judgment, the states, which cannot pay workers’ salaries cannot be trusted to afford state police. Second, the constitution does not support state police. Both concerns beg the question.
First, devolving power to states means shedding some of the responsibilities of the federal government. This includes some of the responsibilities for internal security. With this must come the release of some of the resources from the federal to state governments. States also generate internal revenue.
The second point is surprising for what it ignores. The thoughtful struggle of young and old patriots across the country for restructuring has been clearly focused on the inadequacy of the constitution. This is the reason the APC committee recommended, with proposed drafts, amendment to the constitution to accommodate its suggestions. Therefore, the argument that the constitution does not support state police or any other recommendation by the committee is question-begging.
If for reasons best known to the presidency, even restructuring through devolution of power is unacceptable, the question remains, what is the pleasure of NASS?
Normally, no one should be excited about frictions between the presidency and the National Assembly, especially when the same political party controls both branches. However, friction cannot be ruled out and it is not uncommon. They are also good for the polity when they are matters of importance to the future of the nation, such as the issue of its structure and continued stability.
But between this NASS and this presidency, frictions have occurred in small matters that border on pettiness. Such is the matter of the sequence of general election. It is time we saw genuine concern for foundational matters fought out between one unwilling branch of government on the one hand and a willing branch. This is perhaps a wishful thinking on my part and it may border on presumptuousness. How can I be sure that the National Assembly is willing to pursue the important issue of restructuring? Well, I am not sure it is; however, I could see why it should be.
Both the presidency and NASS have equal stakes in the Nigerian project. While the president was elected directly by majority of Nigerians, members of both houses of NASS were elected by their constituencies across the nation. NASS members represent the interests of their local constituencies. Three quarters of the zones of the nation have expressed support for restructuring in general and devolution in particular.
After extensive consultations with the people across the six zones, a committee of the ruling party, to which a majority of the members of the National Assembly belong, recommended devolution of power. It goes without saying that the people who elected NASS members are in support of devolution.
If NASS truly represents the people, it has no choice but to legislate in favor of devolution according to the recommendations of the committee. Therefore, notwithstanding the position of the presidency, NASS has a responsibility to champion the cause that the people demand. This will be its glorious legacy.
- Follow me on Twitter:
@SegunGbadeg2002
@HarvestDayPubs
