Presidential system wrong for Nigeria

Alhaji Muhammed Ighile

aobaseki@yahoo.com

10 April 2005

Dear Progressive Nigerians,

This is the second in my series of web-logs on current political topics. In the first one, I explained why the current PDP "dialogue" going on in Abuja does not represent what we have been calling for since the NADECO and NALICON pro-democracy struggle. We insist on a sovereign national conference where the component ethnic nationalities and civil society groups, unions, professions, students and economically active citizens can solve the serious problems which were created by colonial and military rule over many decades.

Today I want to focus on the most important issue facing the selected PDP members and some elderly statesmen gathered in Abuja at the invitation of government. According to a report in Sunday Guardian (10 April), "the National Conference's Committee on the Executive has backed the present presidential system of government as the best for the country." This revelation came from Alhaji Abdul-Raheem Shittu, a member of the committee, who said "that the overbearing advantages of the presidential system gave it the edge over other systems of government."

My friends and fellow progressives, this is a ridiculous assertion and cannot be taken seriously at face value. What has the presidential system done for Nigeria, except to promote dictatorship, arrogance, corruption and lack of leadership? One needs to examine the First Republic under Tafawa Balewa, when the regions played a strong role in the balance of power and in the improvement in the lives of the citizens. Although the coup of 1966 justifiably responded to issues of failure in that government, with the benefit of hindsight, anyone would prefer to re-live those problems compared to what the country is suffering today.

Under the regional constitution, before dictatorial imposition of unitary rule by the military in 1966, there was healthy competition among the various regions in the fields of agriculture, education, trade and communications. Planning was decentralized and law enforcement agencies

were accountable to their local populations. Someone like Tafa Balogun could not amass such wealth, except that all police powers in the whole country have been vested in one individual feeding off of kickbacks and commissions from all the state commands.

You want to fight corruption? Presidential rule is the best way to continue corruption and increase it, as government degenerates into "lobbying". Even the sacked Minister of Education, Fabian Osuji, said it, as reported in Vanguard of 12 April: "Osuji insisted that if the country continued to practice the presidential system of government, money was going to continue to change hands."

What therefore is the reason to keep a presidential system, except to protect the interests of a clique or small group of people who surround the big man and derive all their wealth and power from him--not from the masses, as is supposed to be the case in a democracy. The abusers of power will relinquish that power voluntarily, and the national dialogue does not have an independent voice with which to demand reform. This is

what all progressives already knew from the composition of the dialogue and its no-go areas. But now they have said it openly: no change in the current, failed, military-imposed constitution. Therefore we must reject this position and articulate the alternative, which I call reformed regionalism.

Under a truly representative and democratic structure, we are not pretending that abuse is impossible. No: all political systems can be abused. The difference in a truly decentralized system is that abuses can be corrected through mechanisms of accountability. When Mr. President sacks a minister, that is not accountability unless due process has been applied, and it is not accountability if the sacking is selective. Are we supposed to believe that Dr. Osuji is the first minister who handled bags of government money since 1999? Is Mr. Balogun the first policeman to send money to foreign banks? All the reports on corrupt judges, on the Anambra coup, on Oputa Commission, no single individual has been sacked

or even arrested for all these crimes. There is the Halliburton case, where bribes were paid in the oil sector. Who received the bribes, and where is the accountability? Or does government turn a blind eye whenever it is convenient?

Unless Mr. President wants to be omniscient and omnipotent, he cannot single-handedly run a country the size and complexity of Nigeria. But since 1999 we have seen that the National Assembly and the State governors are virtually powerless under the shadow of Aso Rock. We live in a civilian doctatorship which is called a presidential system for politeness.

The mere sacrifice of a few third rate players in the Abuja corruption game will never convince Nigerians that the presidential system is capable of delivering honest government or democratic order. Because of this simple fact, known to everyone including the delegates in the national dialogue, it is plainly wrong and deceptive to recommend that the presidential system is the best we can do.

Another reason to scrap the over-centralized constitution, given to us by the military, is the bitter experience of two federal elections in 1999 and 2003. In the presidential system of winners take all, there is no effective opposition either at the state or federal level. Because of the presidential system, Nigeria is a one-party state, really one man rule. The only contest that matters today is the contest within the PDP inner

circle for nomination in 2007. Whether Baba, Atiku or others, it is a choice which will be made outside of the view of Nigerians, long before

the so-called election will take place. We progressives are going to hold a true people's congress later this year, after the failure of the PDP national dialogue should have been plain for all to see. In our genuine effort, the best minds and most representative voices from all sectors of the country will be free to

choose among different options of self-government. This human right was not granted to Nigerians in 1960, and even the 1979 constitution was influenced by the military rulers of the day. At last let the people choose their own form of association, be it parliamentary or decentralized, based on the bitter experience of the past 45 years. We can surely do better, and anyone who denies this is not speaking the truth.

In solidarity,

Muhammed Ighile, 12 April 2005