By Olu Fasan
As they prepared to return Nigeria to civilian rule in 1979, the military regime, led by General Murtala Muhammed and later by General Olusegun Obasanjo, set up a 49-man committee to draft a new constitution for Nigeria. However, the regime gave the “49 wise men” a red line: they must not return Nigeria to the parliamentary system, practised after independence from 1960 to 1966. Instead, they should adopt the American-style presidential system. After General Murtala’s assassination in 1976, General Obasanjo took over as head of state and put his imprimatur on the draft constitution, inserting nearly 20 amendments.
*Obasanjo
So, the 1979 Constitution lied when it ascribed itself to “We the people of Nigeria.” In truth, it was Obasanjo’s military regime, aided by a few civilian elites, that imposed the constitution and the presidential system on Nigeria. Today, over 40 years after Nigeria first practised the system, and despite its patent flaws and unsuitability for Nigeria, Obasanjo is still defending it.
The Yoruba
say ‘omoeni ki sedibebere, ka fi
ilekesiidiomoelomiran’, which, roughly translated, means that however ugly
one’s child’s bottom, one wouldn’t put beads on the bottom of someone else’s
child. There’s a seeming parallel here. Being his ‘child’, Obasanjo can’t see
the weaknesses of the presidential system, in the Nigerian context, and the
relative merits of the parliamentary system, again in the Nigerian context.
Recently, Obasanjo rebuked
members of the House of Representatives and leaders of the Northern Elders
Forum who called for a return to the parliamentary system. He reminded them of
the 1966 coup which ended the practice of parliamentarianism in Nigeria.
Counting from 1999, rather than 1979, Obasanjo argued that “the 24 years of
practising presidential system” were not enough to judge the system.
Well, let’s start with those points. First, the 1966 coup didn’t discredit the parliamentary system. If it did, then the 1983 coup discredited, even more so, the presidential system, which lasted for only four years (1979-1983) as against the parliamentary system, which lasted six years (1960-1966). Truth is, the January 1966 coupists did not blame the failure of the parliamentary system for the coup; rather, they cited corruption and the rigged federal elections of 1964, and particularly those of the Western Region in1965.
But if corruption and
electoral frauds were problems under the parliamentary system, haven’t they
reached stratospheric levels under the presidential system? Second, if 24 years
are not enough to judge the efficacy of the presidential system, were six years
enough to judge the parliamentary system, but for the 1966 military
intervention?
Yet, here’s the simple truth:
the core justification for adopting the presidential system has failed abjectly.
The claim was that a powerful executive president would be a unifying figure
who could corral and unite the country. But which Nigerian president has been a
unifying figure? Was President Buhari a unifying figure? Is Bola Tinubu, who
was rejected by 63 per cent of the electorate, a unifying figure? And despite
the enormous powers vested in the Nigerian president, has any president been
able to corral and unite Nigeria? Instead of authoritarian utopia, what Nigeria
has had under the presidential system is totalitarian dystopia, where
supposedly strong and unifying presidents use the military to enforce elusive
unity. Remember Buhari’s ‘Operation Python Dance’ or Obasanjo’s ‘Odi Massacre’?
Truth be told, it is impossible
to govern a multi-ethnic country with a strongman mentality by centralising
powers and vesting them in one person. That’s why most multi-ethnic countries
operate the more representative and consultative parliamentary system. Of the
193 UN member-states, more than 140 have a parliamentary system or a hybrid of
presidential and parliamentary systems. More than 32 of the 50 sovereign
nations in Europe practise the parliamentary system. The Commonwealth has the
largest collection of multi-ethnic countries and, unsurprisingly, about 40 of
the 54 Commonwealth countries operate the parliamentary system, including
successful countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, India and Singapore. South
Africa has a hybrid system.
Those opposed to political
restructuring often say that it’s not the system that matters, but the
operators. Obasanjo made the same point: “No matter what you bring and no
matter what you import, if the political culture is not there, it won’t work.”
On the face of it, that argument is unassailable. But it’s an escapist logic.
Truth is, systems matter; they can constrain behaviour. According to one study,
there were 123 changes in the form of government in 169 countries from 1950 to
2003. If it didn’t matter, why did they do it? In 2015, Sri Lanka ditched its
executive presidency in favour of a prime ministership. In 1997, South Africa
abolished its Senate and replaced it with the 90-member National Council of
Provinces, NCOP. No country should be so sclerotic that it refuses to change
its system of government if it’s not working.
Unfortunately, in Nigeria, those benefitting from the current system and those emotionally attached to it continue to resist change even when everyone knows the system is deeply flawed. In 2018, when launching her book Fighting Corruption Is Dangerous at the London School of Economics, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said there were two root-causes of corruption in Nigeria: first, weak institutions and second, “Nigeria’s costly presidential system.” In his recent book Reclaiming the Jewel of Africa, Dr Segun Aganga said: “The consensus is that the American-style presidential system has proven too expensive for Nigeria,” adding that “the presidential system is too expensive for the size of the Nigerian economy.”
Those are former finance ministers. But who’s listening?
Beyond fuelling corruption and high cost of governance, evidence also shows that the presidential system is worse than the parliamentary system in terms of good governance and economic efficiency. According to the OECD’s 2022 “Trust in Government” survey, the top 20 of the 41 OECD member-countries surveyed operate a parliamentary system. America, the standard-bearer of presidentialism, ranks 35 in the survey.
Another study, which drew on data from 119 countries from 1950 to 2015, found
that 91per cent of the best performers on economic growth and income equality
are parliamentary governments. Why? Because parliamentary systems generally
score higher than presidential system on democracy, rule of law and checks and
balances.
Nigeria’s
founding fathers opted for the parliamentary system, the 1966 coupists
torpedoed it, Obasanjo buried it. But Nigeria must resurrect the parliamentary
system or adopt a hybrid system. Presidentialism is an albatross. Nigeria must
rid itself of it!
*Dr. Fasan is a commentator on public issues
No comments:
Post a Comment