What kind of government is best for Nigeria?
written by: Diran Apata
We Nigerians have experienced two different systems of government. We started off in 1952 with the British Parliamentary System – of elected parliamentarians who then, on the floor of the parliament, elect the Prime Minister (in the case of the Nigerian House of Representatives), or Premier (in the case of the Regional or State House of Assembly). The Prime Minister or Premier then nominates his ministers for his colleagues in parliament to accept.
In this system, a Minister is responsible for the management of his Ministry, the Council of Ministers is jointly responsible for the direction of affairs, and the Chief Executive (Prime Minister or Premier) is just First Among Equals. The Council of Ministers considers and approves the plans and programmes of Ministers, and ensures the place and harmony of such plans and programmes in the over-all direction of the government. Each Minister presents and defends his plans and programmes (that have been approved by the Council of Ministers) on the floor of parliament, usually with additional backing by the Prime Minister or Premier.
The Prime Minister or Premier, as well as the Ministers, are responsible for making programmes and plans acceptable to the legislature, and are usually subjected to questioning by the legislators trying to satisfy themselves before giving approval. They are also responsible for presenting the reports of the executive government to the legislature. To ensure success in parliament, the Prime Minister or Premier and his Ministers must keep their party members in parliament well informed about, and satisfied with, their plans and programmes. On the whole, this is a system characterized by joint responsibilities, systemic accountability, informing and persuading – with built-in capabilities for limiting whims and caprices and corrupt practices.
But in the 1970s, under the thick shadow of Military Rulers and heavy influence of Military Rule, Nigeria’s leaders gathered in Lagos and chose the American Presidential System for our country. We did not know the nuances and possible pitfalls of this system then; but now we know them – and they are many and serious. For one thing, the presidential system makes the political process, with countrywide presidential elections and statewide gubernatorial elections and Senatorial elections, far too expensive. No Nigerian who has taken part in the system, who has been through its heavy expenses and usually heavy debts, can deny that these enormously expensive elections have been a major factor in the boosting of corruption in our country’s political life.
For another, the system concentrates power and responsibilities too heavily in the hands of the President or Governor. It has had the effect of turning our Presidents and Governors into virtual autocrats, their colleagues in the executive arm of government into mere waiters-on, and our legislators into glorified outsiders. Some Nigerian intellectuals have just completed a joint book in which they have pooled together their various and widespread studies of the steadily growing impotence of legislatures, the growing dictatorial tendencies of Presidents and Governors, and the enormous influence of President’s and Governors’ whims and caprices in our governmental system. Because Presidents and Governors tend to view their administrations as their exclusive personal mandates, our country has been sustaining heavy financial losses through poorly digested, unreasonably chosen, and inadequately discussed programs and projects, through Presidents’ and Governors’ temptations to insist on showing their personal footmarks on governance, and through thoughtless abandonment of programmes and projects initiated by predecessors.
Furthermore, the system has made the position of President or Governor so eminently desirable for politicians, that the quest for it has become a major source of conflicts and confusion in our political system. And finally, on the whole, the system has contributed greatly to the destruction of the professional quality of our civil service and bureaucrats – and this has been a major factor in the general decline of the quality of governance in our country.
This concentration of power in the hands of Chief Executives has proved culturally difficult for some Nigerian peoples to live happily with. Left to choose their own system of government, there are Nigerian nationalities that would hardly ever choose the presidential system – peoples (like my own Yoruba nation) who are used, in their history and political traditions, to shared responsibilities, mutual respect, and accountability, among the rulers of society.
In Nigeria’s nation building experience, the predominant tendency, unfortunately, has been to impose uniformity in all things on all segments of Nigeria. However, hopefully, now that Nigerians are going to gather at a National Conference to restructure the Nigerian Federation, there will arise a chance to review the mode of government best for Nigeria. I humbly propose that, in the restructured Nigerian Federation, Nigeria should return to the parliamentary system at the federal center. Since each Federating Unit will make its own constitution, each Federating Unit should be free to adopt its own preferred system of government. Those Federating Units that desire, for instance, a Sharia system of laws, will therefore be able to adopt it without seeming to be doing anything wrong or defiant among us, and without feeling that they need the rest of us to adopt their system.
The fundamental philosophy behind the whole idea of a federation is acceptance of, and respect for, difference. For some historic reason, a number of nations, living in their different homelands, find themselves joined together as one country, sharing one sovereignty. To be able to relate to one another harmoniously, they evolve a federal system of government – in which each nation governs itself in its own way, and all contribute to a common federal government. As a result, there are usually differences in the systems of government chosen by the federating states in a federation. There are variations in system among the states of the United States of America, the states of the Indian Union, and the cantons of the Swiss Federation.
Even in such a minor particular as traffic regulations, there are differences from state to state in the United States of America.
In the matter of mode of government, there are likely to be differences in the ways in which our states will design their constitutions after our federation is restructured. For instance, even if we end up having a President in Abuja and governors in some states, I seriously doubt that we Yoruba will ever have governors again. For years now, we have seen what governors look like - and the general Yoruba opinion is that being ruled by governors is ugly. We would rather be ruled by a Council of Ministers, in which a Premier is only First Among Equals, in which each Minister or Commissioner bears definite responsibilities, and in which all are members of our elected legislature and are responsible, on a daily basis, to our legislature. That’s the kind of people we are
No comments:
Post a Comment