The inability of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to broker a truce in the face-off between the Presidency and the National Assembly has impeded the administration’s resolve to work towards fulfilling some of its campaign promises. As a party that has control of the two arms of government, the APC’s failure to rein them into accepting its authority has put a question mark on its cohesiveness. This was the focus of a recent seminar at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, Kuru, Plateau State, TONY AKOWE reports.
One issue that has occupied public discourse in recent times is the need to return to the era when political parties had firm control of the affairs of its elected representatives, both in the executive and legislative arms of government. Since the return to civil rule in 1999, political party supremacy has eluded Nigeria’s democratic practice. The parties, especially those with elected representatives, have been at the mercy of those they sponsored to political offices. The parties have been under the firm control of the executive and the cabals that call the shots from behind the scene.
The lack of party supremacy is more evident today than any time in the nation’s political history. Appointees of President Muhammadu Buhari have suffered humiliation at the Senate, which is dominated by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
In a bid to expand the discussion and offer solution, the nation’s foremost policy think-tank, the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, brought together experts and political actors to discuss the issue and chart a way forward. Setting the stage for the discussion, its Acting Director-General, Jonathan Juma, said unfortunately the concept of party supremacy has been interpreted to mean so many things, including placing the political parties above its members, democratic institutions and even the national constitution.
He said: “There is no doubt that the cohesiveness of each political party in parliament would contribute to efficient and effective government. Parties can help to articulate group aims, nurture political leadership, develop and promote policy alternatives and present coherent policies pectoral alternatives. Politicians within the same party tend to be more responsible to one another than.
“However, the influence of political parties tends to encroach into the parliamentary standing orders or even what is laid down in the letters of the law. The scale of this influence may differ, depending on the party’s impact on the work of the parliament and in the conduct of its members. Proponents of expanded intra-party democracy seek to move parties in the direction of more inclusive decisions. Parties with high degree of intra-party democracy are generally highly institutionalised, because they have rules that spell out the qualifications for participation.”
The Country Director, the International Republican Institute, an arm of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Sentell Barnes, said party supremacy is only relevant if there is a smooth-working relationship between political parties and the legislative arm of government, which is considered the bastion of representative government. He said political parties, having provided the channel for the election of lawmakers, are expected to develop a framework which will ensure that they enact laws and policies towards fulfilling the party’s electoral promises.
But, former Senate President Ken Nnamani said the problem in Nigeria stems from the fact that the party system has not developed as it ought to. He said: “Many legislators don’t understand how to be good party members and remain effective legislators. The concept of a legislator as a trustee can help us develop a framework to harmonise the idea of an independent legislator who is also a good party man. In other words, parliamentary independence is not incompatible or conflictual with the notion of the supremacy of the party, so far as we understand the proper workings of the two concepts.”
Nnamani added: “The supremacy of the party does not mean that the party bureaucrats should dictate to the legislators how he should do his work. This will obviously undermine an important pillar of constitutional democracy — the independence of the legislature. It does not mean that the leadership of the legislative house should be annexed to the headquarters of the political party such that the members of the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) should determine proceedings in the legislature. The ‘legislator-as-a-trustee’ means that at every moment, the legislator should employ his best reason to determine how he votes in the chambers.
“But, in making up his mind on the issues in the chambers, the legislator may consult the leadership of the party for major decisions and insights. This is why there are party caucuses in the legislative house. It is from the leadership of the caucus that the party influences the legislative chamber. It is not a matter of issuing diktats and reading riot acts. This is why we need resourceful and skillful managers in the leadership of the party. The party leaders should be persons who command respect among party members, such that legislators from the party will naturally look up to them for guidance. The role of the Whip in the legislatures is to ensure coordination and direction of members towards the legislative agenda in the ruling party and the opposition party. In this regard, the problem is not necessarily the disobedience of legislators as mu h as the absence of a clearly-defined and well-communicated legislative agenda.
“The relationship between legislators and their party leadership is not based on personality or personal issues. It is based in the party’s policy platforms which become the ruling party’s legislative agenda. Where such agenda is robustly promoted by the leadership of the party, there will be little room for disagreement between the party and its legislators. If there is no such agenda and harmonious relationship is promoted on account of personal feelings and opinions, it is not going to be sustainable. Legislators will easily resist the idiosyncrasies of party leaders, but will be very amenable to well-argued party policies and programmes.”
Former Speaker of the House of Representative, Ghali Umar Na’Abba said party supremacy refers to a principle where the interest of a political party supersedes that of a member. He said: “It presupposes that even in the legislature, one must act according to the dictates of his party. It is pertinent to note here that in all the above narrative, there had been no involvement of any political party. This was the type of system we practice. Party supremacy in the legislature cannot work. Party supremacy is inconsistent with the constitution. The constitution has delineated power for each branch of government. It is however desirous that a political party be able to work hand-in-hand with its congressional members.
“In our desire to make our system work, we must define how much of checks and balances we require that can guarantee human rights, liberty and good governance. There is the public perception that the executive branch at all levels seeks to always have a legislature that is pliant and subservient and thus easily controllable. It is foolhardy and short sighted in a democratic regime to govern with a legislature that is not autonomous and independent.”
Former Deputy Senate President Ibrahim Mantu said while party supremacy means the party has the final say in the administration of its affairs, this is premised on the fact that the party is supreme over its constituents and that every member is subjected to the supremacy of the constitution of the party represented by its various organs. He said even though all the political parties in Nigeria have party supremacy enshrined in their constitution, the leadership of the parties have hijacked that supremacy from the people and the organs.
Mantu said: “From 2003, governors cutting across all political leanings took over total control of party affairs, particularly in giving people tickets for various elective offices. If one is not on the governor’s line up, no matter how infectious his popularity may be, he would not see the light of the day. People would queue up in the hot sun or in the rain for a whole day without food and water, voting for candidates of their choices only for those they elected to be dropped by the governors and replaced with their surrogates. So, supremacy of the party becomes supremacy of the governors.
“The party must be seen to achieve positive results that no individual can achieve. The people will recognise and appreciate the party supremacy with the evidence of its positive development of the agenda. The Nigerian nation has seen the worst of all sorts of bad governance. We acknowledge that there is corruption all over the world, but our type of corruption is uniquely different. There is element of greed in our brand of corruption. In other words, we are greedily corrupt. As we approach 2019, we must put our house in order. We, the politicians have sinned against Almighty God, the giver of power and have sinned against the very people God used to endorse His anointment by voting us into power. Our sins have reached saturating point and the natural law of gravity would bring everything down to ground zero. We must therefore purge ourselves and be on our knees to ask Almighty God and the good people of Nigeria for forgiveness.”
However, Prof. Jibrin Ibrahim of the Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja, believes that Nigerian democracy is suffering from a series of accountability challenges that has made consolidation of constitutionalism and good governance difficult. He argued that political parties are not accountable to their members who voted for them. He said: “Since 2011 elections, the integrity of the vote has been improving in a remarkable manner. The direct implication of the emergence of credible elections is that citizens matter because it is their vote that determines who gets into power in the executive and legislative branches.” He placed the problem facing party supremacy in the country today at the doorstep of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
He said: “One of the most serious challenges in our democracy is that party bosses have very little or no control over their elected members in the legislature and executives. The original sin was committed in 1999 when the then newly elected President Olusegun Obasanjo declared himself the leader of the party, thereby usurping the power of the party chairman. Once he did that, sitting governors in the state declared themselves party leaders at the levels. Party executives then became simple figureheads without real power or influence.”
Also blaming Obasanjo for the problem between the legislature and the executive, Na’Abba who had a running battle with the former President and failed to secure re-election thereafter, said the quest to have a legislature that is subservient led to the current state of affairs. The former speaker said Obasanjo’s decision to impose a leadership on the National Assembly and the resolve to fight back by the lawmakers is responsible for the relationship that has existed between the two arms of government since 1999. He traced the origin of the crisis to Obasanjo’s decision to change the date of the inauguration of the National Assembly from June 3, 1999 to June 6, to allow him ample opportunity to manipulate the election of the Senate President, thus paving the way for the emergence of Evan Enwerem as Senate President, instead of Chuba Okadigbo that was preferred by most senators.
