The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Presidential system

  • Presidential system not Nigeria’s problem

    Presidential system not Nigeria’s problem

    By Frank Anyasi                             

    Nigeria has all it takes to be a great country. She numbers among the most endowed nations of the world. She is bestowed with abundant natural resources, gifted human capital, great wealth and breath-taking topographies that are in abundance, with a rich mix of tropical rainforest,  serene savannah belt with aquatic splendour. Nigeria typifies the majesty of creation and what many countries wished they were. Add to that list our rich diversity in culture.

    Yet, in spite of its great endowment, there is lack of elite consensus on how best to govern the country. In an effort to solve this problem, some of our lawmakers are rooting for a change to the parliamentary system of government as practised in 1963. According to them, the parliamentary system is more cost effective and responsive to the challenges faced by the citizens.

    Read Also: The Town Crier preaches Pan Afrikanism in new single

    Parliamentary system is a democratic form of government in which the executive proceeds from the legislature, normally called the parliament. The party or a coalition of parties with the highest number of members in the legislature forms the executive. The leader of the party becomes the Prime Minister, who is the head of government and is different from the head of state. Executive functions are exercised by members of the parliament appointed by the prime minister to the cabinet as ministers. The cabinet is also held accountable to the parliament.

    The implication is that if Nigeria were practising parliamentary system of government and a party wins majority of the seats in the parliament from only a section of the country, that section of the country must also produce all the ministers of the cabinet in the executive because the Prime Minister can only appoint members of the majority party as ministers. In other words, there is a fusion of power of the executive and legislature. Assuming a party from the South wins majority seats in the parliament, that implies by law that only the South will produce all the members of the executive. The same applies if the party from the North wins the majority in parliament. The question is how can this arrangement help our political stability and manage our diversity?

    In the presidential system, the people elect the President directly and he can choose his ministers from any state of the federation. The electorate may decide to vote a party to govern the legislature, but vote for a different party for the president. The presidential system makes for quick decisive actions because the president knows that the buck stops at his desk. The president is at liberty to either consult his ministers or refuse to seek their opinion in taking decision. The ministers are mere advisers to the president and it is not binding on the president to go along with the council of ministers, unlike the case under the parliamentary system where the prime minister is always at pains to secure the support of the cabinet. The fact that the voters popularly elect the president makes the whole country a single constituency for him and, as such, the party does not have an overwhelming control over him. He,  rather than his party or his appointees, bears the responsibility for his actions and inactions. This is usually the source of pressure on him to perform since he cannot shift blame to any other person.

    The presidential system makes it easier for an ineffective minister to be identified and singled out for blame or even dismissal. His dismissal will not affect other ministers or even in the extreme make a government to collapse. Unlike the parliamentary system where a non-performing minister will take cover under the concept of collective responsibility, the president who is supposed to be above party politics is able to view issues on their merit and not unwisely according to party dictates.

    The fixed tenure in office enjoyed by a president under the presidential system makes for the stability of government and the continuity of policies, rather than instability that characterizes the parliamentary system. A new general election can be called in a parliamentary system anytime a vote of no-confidence is passed on the government. The prime minister can unilaterally call for a general election if he cannot get his decisions passed through the parliament. For instance, between 2015 and 2019 Britain conducted five elections. These are very costly ventures and knowing the challenges of terrain, diversity and poverty of a developing country like Nigeria, it will be calamitous to have political instability with such number of elections within a short period.

    The parliamentary system, because it does not guarantee the people direct power to vote for the president, tends to discriminate against the minority in favour of the majority, whereas the presidential system benefits the minority because the people can decide to use their votes to correct the imbalance in their society. The American people directly voted for an Africa-American man to be a president. In Nigeria, a man from Bayelsa State, with the least number of local governments, was voted to become president. This would never have been possible under a parliamentary system of government.

    The presidential system, with decentralized powers, will be ideal for Nigeria. There is need to devolve economic and political powers to the sub-national governments closest to the people. We copied the American presidential system of government, but we are not implementing it the way it is done in America. Unlike in Nigeria, the USA has no central federal electoral commission that conducts the presidential election. All elections – federal, state and local – are conducted by the individual state.

    What Africa and indeed Nigeria needs is a leader that has courage to make promises during the electioneering campaign and the integrity to keep those promises. We need leaders who think and act outside the box of convention. The presidential system is most suitable for a federation of nations like ours and its diverse culture. After all, politics is about rendering service to the people. The major challenge is lack of elite consensus on how to deliver on their mandate. The fault is not in the presidential system but in ourselves.

  • Presidential system a waste of resources, says Dickson

    bayelsa State Governor Seriake Dickson yesterday picked holes on the position of President Muhammadu Buhari on the agitation for restructuring of the country.

    He described the statement by the President that those pushing for restructuring were motivated by selfish interests as “unpresidential.’

    Dicskon, according to a statement by the Special Adviser on Media Relations, Fidelis Soriwei, made the comment while delivering a lecture with the theme: “Restructuring and the Search for a Productive Nigeria,”, organised by the Faculty of Arts, Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife in Osun State.

    The Bayelsa governor said Nigerians in the vanguard of the campaign for the restructuring of the country were the patriotic ones motivated by a desire for the nation’s peace, prosperity and stability.

    He wondered why the President would dismiss the general quest of the Nigerian citizenry to restructure the federation which would not withstand the test of time in its current lopsided nature.

    He said: “When everybody in this country is talking about the need to restructure this country, our President, Muhammadu Buhari, made a statement that is not only wrong, but it is also faulty that cannot stand the test of time and a threat to the continued stability and prosperity and development of our country, when he dismissed outright, the notion of restructuring.

    “And he didn’t stop there, he went ahead to say that those who are in support of restructuring are doing so for parochial agenda. Mr. President, you are wrong. In fact the reverse is the case. The majority of Nigerians from the North, South, East, West and Middle Belt, who are making a case for restructuring are indeed the patriots of Nigeria.

    “We want a Nigeria that works with equal citizenship. A Nigeria for the many as well as for the few; a Nigeria that we will be proud to call home any day, that we can proudly pledge allegiance to.

    “The outcome of my interaction has shown that Nigerians are in support of restructuring. I am not imposing my views,  I don’t believe that the Presidential system is what Nigeria needs. The system is expensive, we can’t have a productive Nigeria with the way it is structured. The government has abandoned its core responsibilities of defence and security. The constitutional issue can’t deliver a safe Nigeria.

    “There’s need to devolve policing powers to the people; but I’m not saying states should have police. Our system of settling disputes is faulty. Why should a land dispute in communities be dragged to the Supreme Court? I know many things about access to justice. Instead of justice getting stronger, you see Babalawos getting stronger. The distortion of our federal structure has destroyed Nigeria.”

    Dickson said the current arrangement where the central government would take over all responsibilities such as the judiciary, the police and others to the exclusion of the state was an arrangement in need of change.

    According to him, the Federal Government had not fared well even in its core responsibilities such as Defence and security as shown by the killings in the land.

    ” A Nigeria where the exclusive list is longer than the concurrent one. A Nigeria where the Federal Government is a Jack of all trade, but a master of none.

    “A Nigeria where the Federal Government dissipates itself in areas that it has no competence, no local knowledge to deliver productivity to the extent that it has abandoned its core areas of responsibility.

    The governor also took a swipe at the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation which he described as opaque.

    He said the rule of 13 per cent derivation funds to the producing states was not being implemented in the country.

    Dickson said the oil producing states were being subjected to whatever handouts the NNPC could offer them.

    The governor said that the way forward was restructuring if the citizens desire for security and stability was to be a reality.

  • Ex-Head of Service Fika seeks scrapping of presidential system

    Former Head of Service of the Federation Alhaji Adamu Fika, has called for the abolition of the Presidential System of government.

    Fika, represented by former Registrar of Bayero University, Kano, Alhaji Sani Aminu, made the call in Bauchi while presiding as chairman of a Public Lecture organised to celebrate the third year anniversary of Bauchi State governor Muhammed Abubakar’s administration.

    He observed that apart from being expensive to implement, it lacked reliable mechanisms for checks and balance.

    “We should do away with this expensive and corrupt presidential system, which lack genuine checks and balances.

    ” It has proven to be unsuitable for our country; it was never the wish of Nigerians, but was imposed on them by the military.

    “We should revisit the parliamentary system which was based on the 1963 constitution; with necessary amendments,” said Fika, who served as Head of Federal Civil Service from January 1986 to April 1988.

    He also kicked against the continuous operation of the two-chamber system, adding that such arrangement was no longer necessary.”

     

     

    “We should also consider if it is necessary to continue to have two chambers of the legislature; before 1960, we did not have Senate.

    ” It was however introduced as a counter-balance for the Northern region, which had more number in the House of Representatives, than the number for the three regions of the south combined.

    “Now that the anomaly is no longer with us, do we really need to have two chambers of the national Assembly?,” Fika questioned.

    He stated that it had always been his contention that unless Nigerians revisited and readopted the principles and practices of good governance bequeathed by founding fathers, the nation would continue to “wallow in backwardness”.

    Fika said that it was regrettable that succeeding Nigeria leaders had deviated from the noble practices of the country’s founding fathers.

    He observed that as a result if this act of commission, a major damage was inflicted on the country as the constitution was dumped on the orders of the military.

    Fika said following this development, “public service was brought firmly under political control and political consideration became sole criterion for appointment into public service.

    ” Thus, within one and half decades of the military intervention in governance, things began to fall apart and within the last three decades, the quality of governance had changed drastically for the worse.

    “The noble course chartered earlier became roughened by greed, self-centeredness and avarice, laced in and massaged by corruption of unimaginable scale,” he said.

  • Presidential system as huge burden

    Sir: A people’s hope in any democracy is good governance from the system of government put in place and also the activities of political party at the helm of affairs. Most important is the improvement in the standard of living of the majority of the population. Where this is lacking, there is then poor political service delivery. This naturally leads to apathy towards the party and the system of government in place.

    My main focus here is not on the activities of political parties since the transition to civil democracy in 1999. I shall be looking at the American model presidential system we seem to practise in Nigeria. Except the ruling elites who are hypocritical about the general situation in our country since this journey through our civil democracy, it is now clear to all that this is not the democracy our people fought the military dictatorship for. The presidential system we now hang on our neck as a nation has become a heavy load not allowing our country to move forward. The presidential system in the Nigerian context has become too corrupted and expensive.

    While so much is channeled towards sustaining the presidential system, very little or nothing is left to meet the yearnings and aspirations of our people. While the operators and beneficiaries of the system have become more comfortable, the Nigerian people at the receiving end have become poorer and more pauperized. We need to reduce cost of governance at both federal and state tiers of government. There is need to cut down over-bloated numbers of political office holders and personal aides. We need a general review of remuneration of all political office holders.

    We are in a worst case scenario where many states have become failed states in Nigeria. Many of these failed states need financial bailout to run an effective government of the day

    In this era of serious economic recession, do we need two ministers in a ministry? Do we really need permanent secretaries and many director-generals on one ministry? Why these coterie of personal aides and advisers from these governors of failed states.

    We need reduced members of the legislative arm (Federal & State) instead of the present crowd. What it takes to sustain and maintain this crowd since our democracy in 1999 is alarming. The legislative arm has become another conduit pipe through which the resources of this country is plundered and wasted. It is my candid opinion that an urgent review of the presidential system is imperative.

     

    • Isiaka Ajanah

    Lokoja based public analyst.

  • Can Nigeria afford our current presidential system?

    For the benefit of younger Nigerians, it is important to state that we used to have a parliamentary system of government in which both  key functionaries of the executive and  the legislative branches of government worked through the parliament. Ministers were chosen from the ranks of elected members. They were political leaders on their own whose opinions the premier and leader of the House had to take cognizance of. Each minister was in the House to argue and shepherd his bills through parliament until they became laws. The minister of finance was a very important cabinet position and in some cases was regarded as possible successor to the premiership or prime ministerial position because the success or failure of a government depended on how the economy was run. There was collective responsibility and the premier could reshuffle his cabinet any time in case a minister was not performing well or had lost popular support. Such a minister would be shunted to another less important ministry and will be made the ‘fall guy’ for a policy that was commonly agreed to by the party . In this way, government gave the appearance at least of having a listening ear to the electorate. Parliamentary debate was important and an inarticulate minister or premier or prime minister stood no chance of success. This system of government demanded reasonable amount of knowledge and level of education from participating parliamentarians. This system was built on strong political parties with well organized leadership architecture that prepared manifestos on which political parties contested elections.

    Such was the case by which the Obafemi Awolowo party by all acclamation ran the government of Western Nigeria successfully between 1951 and 1959.

    The system provided for a recognized opposition whose leader was recognized by the constitution and tradition. The opposition leader was recognized and provided for with official quarters and ministerial salary. A government falls if it loses a vote of confidence in parliament. Because of the importance of parliamentary debates, parliamentarians who could debate well were favoured with cabinet positions. It was during one fierce exchange between Alhaji Adegoke Adelabu, leader of the opposition and the premier of Western Nigeria, Chief Obafemi Awolowo sometimes in 1956 that Adelabu accused the government of making a “peculiar mess” of a certain situation which on hearing this, his excited illiterate supporters in the gallery shouted “penkelemesi”. This stuck to Adelabu for the rest of his life and became an appellation which industrious Yoruba talking drums artists made popular as “Adelabu penkelemesi”. At the centre in Lagos, Chief Ladoke Akintola made mincemeat of the government through his mastery of the English language as a lawyer and former editor of a major national paper the Daily Service.

    Parliamentary democracy is efficient, cheap and swift unlike the much more expensive, clumsy and slow presidential system with its parallel bureaucracy distinct from the normal civil service. In our experience in Nigeria where it takes forever for annual budgets to be passed, budgets in parliamentary system is a matter of weeks not months so that the real work of government can commence in earnest. There is no clear separation of powers between the legislative and the executive as in the presidential system and the principle of collective responsibility makes for solid work before policies are tabled in parliament unlike what we see in Nigeria where the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. The bevy of legislative assistants makes the current system not only expensive but also makes confidentiality difficult to enforce.

    In the First Republic, the legislature was run on part time basis. Every member at regional and federal levels had their full time jobs as teachers, lawyers or business women and men. They were paid sitting allowances when parliament met. The same was true of local government areas some of which are now states.  But what do we have today?

    We are now told that the cost of maintaining a senator per day is one million naira which includes constituency allowances of N200 million a year, monthly running cost of N13.5 million, salaries of N750,000 a month and sundry allowances for housing, cars, clothing, newspapers, touring, hardship etc. We probably have the most expensive governance architecture in the whole world. What operates at bicameral legislature at the federal levels also operates at the unicameral legislatures at the state and local government administrations. With bloated bureaucracies at federal, state and local government administrations, these add up to make operating cost of government to consume close to 80 percent at the federal level and more than that at state levels and in most cases 100 percent at the 774 LGAs which were created without rhyme or reason but on the basis of vested interests of the military leadership who imposed this untenable system on the country.

    The result of all this is that there is neither development nor growth in Nigeria and the economy. There are also no well-articulated policies on infrastructure, education, health and the unsustainable growth of the country’s population which is becoming a time bomb now and in the nearest future. There is a virtual collapse of the roads network in Nigeria. Roads that were once motorable even when we did not have oil have become death traps. The railroad is still waiting for completion in spite of the daily promises we are subjected to, “hospitals are mere consulting clinics”. Public primary and secondary schools have been abandoned to the poor while the elite send their children to private primary and secondary schools. The same is true of the strikes-plagued tertiary institutions which the elite are now boycotting in favour of schools abroad and in other African countries in west, east and southern Africa. The power situation remains the same and yet everyone knows Nigeria will never develop until we fix the power problem. The GDP of this country will quadruple the day we are able to fix the power situation. In Nigeria we have given up on urban water supply. My house built in Ibadan over 20 years ago has never had water except from my dugout well at the back of the house. Regular water and electricity are things we fast and pray for in Nigeria. Yet we set up governance infrastructure on the same level and on a level much more expensive than in the United States. Something has to give.

    The signs of things to come can be seen in the wanton killings of people particularly in the north-central part of Nigeria by the so-called herdsmen, cattle rustlers and the inevitable militia gangs protecting their people. These are the issues our leaders should be tackling and not who becomes one elected office holder or the other because at the end of the day, the spreading violence may make the state disappear as in Somalia, Libya, Central Africa Republic, Guinea-Bissau and previously in Sierra Leone and Liberia . When that happens, there may be no state or people to govern. The time to prevent this eventuality is now and not in the future.