We need to go back to parliamentary system of government

IT is almost 22 years of democratic rule in Nigeria. There is no better time than now to assess the suitability of the 1999 Constitution. It is even more compelling in the light of recent happenings in the country, especially the wanton killings by the Boko Haram, kidnapping of innocent people by the bandits, and insecurity of lives and properties that has becomes norms and part of the people, indeed, Nigerians are now living in fears; many Nigerians are now scampering for safety instead of searching for means of livelihood, which is needed to cement democracy, this has proved clearly that we are not yet in civility. Unexpectedly, the 2021 budget is more on recurrent expenditure than capital projects.

The recurrent expenditure is to maintain political office holders and their numerous aides. In fact, since the advent into civil rule the cost of running government has been on the high side. These, amongst others, show that there is a need to implement the 2014 conference report and do away with the 1999 Constitution which is the guardian angel of this republic, or better still, we should go back to the parliamentary system of government.

Indeed, the 1999 Constitution was full of abnormalities and biases, which caused major havoc to the living conditions of the common man in this country. The model of government under the 1999 Constitution is called the presidential system of government. The presidential system of government is a system of government whereby the president has strong powers to function as head of government independent of the legislature. Here, the president has executive powers which he can exercise directly or indirectly through his ministers. An active National Assembly can check the enormous powers of the president, but there is a limit to what the national assembly can do in the face of these enormous powers. Our experience has brought this question to the front burner but can we afford to give enormous powers to one man?

We all have since been woken up from that ignorance! The proponents of strong powers for the president, a main feature of the presidential system of government, believe that such powers are needed for strong and united leadership, especially in times of crisis and because of the diverse ethnic composition of the country .These are good reasons to give strong powers for the president but it is the reverse that we have seen as a people. We are living witnesses to what transpired in the last administration. We had a president that was surreptitiously removing governors, senate presidents through the instrumentality of state; a president that was disobeying court orders and a president that rigged a lot of his party-men into office. Obviously these are the dangers inherent in a presidential system of government or better still, point to the fact that the presidential system of government might not be compatible with our clime as a people.

Every constitution, however good it might be, is premised on one fact that the operators would be gentlemen, men of honour.  Our experience has shown that we might not always have men of honour in office and we should not wait till another autocratic leader springs up before we realize our mistake .We need to switch gears. In a country where political patronage is the major source of livelihood and a president that controls the disbursement of funds and all governmental structures, extremes that should not exist side by side, there is no way everybody will not be at the beck and call of such president. We need to go back to the parliamentary system of government that we operated in the first republic under the 1960 and 1963 constitutions.

The parliamentary system of government that we practised then under the 1960 and 1963 constitutions was characterized by four main features. (1) The separation of the Head of State and Head of Government. (2) The plurality of the executive. (3) Parliamentary character of the executive. (4) The responsibility of the ministers to the legislature. The plurality of the executive: The executive is plural in the sense that the Prime Minister is the Head of the Council of Ministers. It is plural in the sense that the Prime Minister has more than one vote in council meeting deliberations.

In the cabinet, all other members stand on equal footing – one man, one vote. It is the Prime Minister that is primus interpares. The council of ministers derives its authority from the Prime Minister because they leave office when his tenure ceases. He chooses his ministers from among his colleagues in the parliament. The separation of Head of State from Head of Government: The head of state was the Governor-General which later turned into the President (under the 1963 Constitution) while the head of government was the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister with his cabinet members that coordinate the government while the Governor-General plays a titular role. Parliamentary character of the executive: Members of the executive are also members of parliament. It is the political party that has the largest number of votes that form the cabinet.

The responsibility of the Executive to the legislature; Here, the legislature has greater control of the cabinet. They are actually fused. The legislature could pass a vote of no confidence in any of the ministers, including the Prime Minister. Now, let us go to the relevance of the above features of the 1960 and 1963 constitutions to our present situation. One complaint that has been recurring from the National Assembly in this present Republic is the non-implementation of the budget which has led to infrastructural decay and the absence of the dividends of democracy. This cannot happen in a Parliamentary system of government where the legislature has greater control of the executive. The executive of the First Republic was described thus: ”the major task of the cabinet is not to lead the party, to manage the parliament or think out policy, but to coordinate administration, ensure that legislative proposals are acceptable to the departments concerned, to keep senior minister in touch with the various lines of activity and to give the work of government a measure of unity.”

Proponents of the presidential system of government might argue that under the 1999 Constitution, the legislature has the power to investigate government ministries and parastatals (Section 88 of the 1999 Constitution). That it is, because the National Assembly has not been up to its responsibility that is why we have had that ugly experience. The power to investigate is curative in nature but the parliamentary system of government will bequeath to us a proactive approach to the issue, it will prevent it from happening. The point is well summed up in this aphorism “Prevention is better than cure.” Also, the collective responsibility under the parliamentary system of government will make long-term planning easier and will effectively check any slide to civilian autocracy or dictatorship. Section 83 of the 1960 Constitution provides as follows: ”the cabinet shall be collectively responsible for any advice given to the Governor-General by or under the general authority of any minister of the government of the federation in the execution of his office.” This no doubt will ensure for careful reasoning on the part of the cabinet. It will make for well thought-out policies that can stand the test of time.

• Òrúnbon, a journalist and public affairs analyst, sent this piece from Ogun State.

YOU SHOULD NOT MISS THESE HEADLINES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE

We Have Not Had Water Supply In Months ― Abeokuta Residents

In spite of the huge investment in the water sector by the government and international organisations, water scarcity has grown to become a perennial nightmare for residents of Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital. This report x-rays the lives and experiences of residents in getting clean, potable and affordable water amidst the surge of COVID-19 cases in the state.