names political parties nigeria

parliamentary system of government Nigeria`s best hope for democratic stability

PARLIAMENTARY  SYSTEM OF  GOVERNMENT –NIGERIA`S  BEST  HOPE FOR  DEMOCRATIC  STABILITY

1. It is almost 10 years of democratic rule in Nigeria. There is no better time than now to assess the suitability of the 1999 constitution than now. It is even more compelling in the light of recent happenings in the country-the 2007 elections, which a lot of people expected to cement democracy proved clearly that we are not yet in civility. The 2009 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 shows that there is a need to review the   1999 constitution  which is the guardian angel of  this republic .This paper will focus one aspect of the constitutional review .I t  will address the present model of government  under  the 1999 constitution.
2. 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 where 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 .Section 5 of the 1999 constitution provides as follows:” Subject to the provisions of this constitution, the executive powers of the Federation  @shall be  vested in the President  and  may  subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of  any law made by the National Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the Vice-President and Minister of the Government  of the Federation; and [b ] shall extend to execution  and  maintenance  of this constitution, all laws  made by the National  Assembly and  to all matters with  respect to which the National Assembly has, for  the  time being, power to  make  laws.”

The  sweeping  powers  of the  President  is  limited  by section 5[4][a]&[b].The President  by  the aforesaid sections cannot declare a state of war  between the federation  and another country except by the sanction of a resolution of  both houses of the National assembly or deploy  any member of the Armed Forces of the federation for combat duty outside Nigeria without the sanction of the National Assembly  in  the form of a resolution.

1. The President  is  also  the  Commander-in –Chief of the armed forces  of the  federation .By section 218  of  the 1999 constitution ,he  is to determine  the operational  use of  the armed  forces of  the  federation .These  are sweeping  powers indeed! Although section 218[4]  provides  that the  national assembly shall  have  power  to  make  laws  for  the  regulation  of  the powers  exercisable  by the president as commander-in-chief of  the armed  forces of  the  federation .This  is  not enough to  limit the  enormous  powers  conferred on  the  president  by  the  said section. Acts  or  laws can not envisage  every  human  scenario that  might crop  up so  effective  regulation of that power is  really out  of  it .In principle ,though, the 1999  constitution has  checks  and  balances. This   can be gleamed from some of the sections cited above. 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-can  we afford  to  give enormous  powers to  one  man ?The  framers  of  the 1979  constitution which  introduced  the  presidential  system of  government for  the  first  time  in our  political  history  which  later  changed  to  the  1999  constitution did  not  anticipate  a  president  that could  transform  into  a civilian  dictator. We  and  them 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, believes that  such powers  is  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 points  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  spring  up  before  we  realize  our  mistake .We  need  to  switch  gears. 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 the 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  practiced  then  offers  some  bright  lessons  for  a  time  such  as  this .In this  discuss, I will   enumerate  the  good  side  of the  1960 and 1963  constitutions  and  the  provisions that  need not  be  adopted again  as  it  relates  to  model  of  government.

1. The  parliamentary  system   of  government  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  meetings  deliberations .In  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  derive 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  forms 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 on  any  of  the   ministers  including  the  prime-minister.

Now  let  us  go  to  the  relevance  of  the  above features  of  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
”
[1]
. 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 ( section88 of the 1999 constitution). That  it  is  because  the   National  Assembly  has  not  bee