Society and Systems of Governance
By
Anthony Akinola
anthonyakinola@yahoo.co.uk
The two great systems of political
governance known to the world of democracy, the parliamentary and the
presidential, have been embraced by Nigeria since independence in
1960. More than most democratic or semi-democratic
nations, Nigerians are well-placed to assess the two political systems
vis-à-vis the priority of their society. The impact the presidential
system of government is capable of having on a society that is as
heterogeneous as ours may not necessarily be the same as the
parliamentary alternative.
The Westminster-type parliamentary
system is a product of historical evolution while the American
presidential system came into being following the Connecticut
Convention of 1787. The presidential constitution itself
was more or less the endorsement of views canvassed by Alexander
Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. Anyone who has read the
Federalist Papers will appreciate the great thinking that went
into every element of the American Constitution.
Although the American Constitution has
been amended several times since its adoption, the great tribute to
the purposefulness of the American people is in the fact that there
has been no other constitutional convention since the Connecticut one.
The American Constitution provides two methods of amendment.
The first method is for a Bill to pass both Houses of the Legislature
by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the Bill has
passed both Houses, it goes in to the States. The second method
prescribed is for a constitutional convention to be called by
two-thirds of the Legislature of the States but this one has never
been used. An amendment must be ratified, or approved,
by three-quarters of States.
Of course there have been debates by
American academics on the merits of the parliamentary system as an
alternative to the presidential one but such debates have ended up
endorsing the latter. The ever-expanding American nation
has become more complex than it was when the constitution was
promulgated in 1787, thirty-seven States having been added to the
Union. Were the American people to opt for the parliamentary system
of government today, the immediate impact would be the emergence of
ethnic political parties and a weakened American nation.
The reason America has been a two-party state for the greater part of
its history is because of the unifying influence of the presidency.
Let me quickly remind readers here that
America has meticulously kept a timetable of four-yearly presidential
elections since 1789 when the first president was elected.
If Barack Obama gets elected in November, most enthusiasts of
fairness and racial equality hope he does, he will be sworn in as the
forty-fourth and first African-American President of the United States
in January 2009. This is the type of discipline and purposefulness
one wishes for a Nigeria of one’s dreams.
This writer’s bias is for the
presidential system of government and he makes no apology in asserting
that Nigeria’s borrowed presidential constitution has revealed greater
potential for unity and stability than the erstwhile parliamentary
system practised between 1960 and 1966. The presidential
system is more or less a form of coalition that brings a heterogeneous
group together. The president has the entire nation as his or her
constituency, while the powers of government are shared
responsibilities between the three arms of government.
There is no basis for a “government of national unity” because, in an
ideal situation, every political party that has an elected
representative is inclusively in government.
Our experience of the parliamentary
system is that of a nation partitioned into government and opposition
along ethnic lines. The political parties were
ethnic-based and political alliances were about which ethnic groups
were prepared to work together. Every ethnic group had one derogatory
name for the other and key politicians had no qualms about insulting
the other group even on television. The outlook was
never like it is with the nearly-homogeneous British people and each
time we disagreed among ourselves we ended up calling for a government
of national unity. The history of parliamentarism in Nigeria is a
history of ethnic bickering and turbulence and one wonders why some
are still nostalgic for it.
Of course it cannot be contradicted that
the presidential system is a lot more expensive than the parliamentary
one but its appropriateness for our society more than compensates for
that. However, the cost of a chosen political
arrangement must not be confused with the corruption and profligacy of
political actors. The writer, Banji Adisa revealed in his patriotic
article, “The high cost of governance”, (The Guardian, 23 July
2008) that the Governor of Gombe State gave a parting cheque of N202
million (two hundred and two million naira) to his predecessor. This,
in the eyes of decent people, is an act of financial profligacy for
which the exuberant governor must be made to account.
The level of financial recklessness in the Nigerian polity is endemic,
a reflection of the quality of our political actors and the
environment in which they operate. No state governor in the United
States goes about dispensing public money as if it were his or her
inheritance. The problem of accountability in our
society invites urgent attention.
However, the position of this writer is
that we should adapt the borrowed presidential system to the realities
of our society. Many nations have succeeded in adapting
either the presidential system or the parliamentary alternative; in
fact, France and Switzerland have successfully married both. It makes
sense for us to entrench the principle of leadership rotation in the
constitution, not least because leadership has been the most
contentious issue in our nation’s history. Entrenching
the principle of leadership rotation in the constitution could also
tame our party system beyond current imagination.
Honestly,
agitation for another constitutional conference – be it of ethnic
nationalities or that of the intelligentsia – no longer excites.
We have had too many conferences in the short history of our
nation and maybe it is time we accepted that improving on what we
already have is the way forward. The culture of election rigging
undoubtedly deprives our “elected” men and women of legitimacy;
otherwise, their right to improve on the constitution based on
established procedures cannot be challenged. Of course
the citizenry must remain active participants in both the
legislative and governmental processes because their fortunes are
inextricably tied to them.
|