THE TRANSITION PROGRAMME THAT IS; FROM THE PARLIAMENTARY TO PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

THE TRANSITION PROGRAMME THAT IS; FROM THE PARLIAMENTARY TO PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION

Since her independence in October I 1960 one of the political problems faced by Nigeria has been the issue of succession from one democratically elected regime to another. Up to the present time, there have been four stretches of civilian democratic governance and republics (1963 - 1966, 1979 – 1983, 1993 and 1999 - Present) which were intermittently disrupted by some military, political, economic and social forces in 1966, 1983, and 1993. Prominent among these forces is a military intrusion and coup d’état which has continually contributed to the breaks in linkages between the civilian governments. From observation, democratic transition and succession in Nigeria like in most developing countries have been descriptively problematic. This notion makes sense when the term “succession” is viewed from the democratic point of view. Succession1 could be classified into orderly or regular and disorderly or irregular.

This debate on transition and succession looms large on the Nigerian political landscape as it occupies an important place in the country’s political agenda. Transition to democracy in Nigeria may be viewed partly as a historically inevitable response to transition from non-democratic military regimes in most cases. Nigeria has pursued elaborate transitions to democracy which in effect amounted to a gradual political disengagement of the military from governance. However, what is important at the present state of Nigeria polity is sustainable democratic governance that the country deserves. Against this background, this paper articulates the place of military2 institution in democratic transition and succession in Nigeria

The First Republic Crisis, MilitaryIncursion, and Transition to Democratic Governance

The Western region based Action Group (AG) political party and the inconsistent census, the Nigeria first republic virtually collapsed. By 1964, political the competition had become very severe, and two major alliances of all the political parties contested the federal elections of that year. Electoral fraud was so rampant and so prevalent that the elections were meaningless and the results of the elections ending in a stalemate (Arikpo, 1967).

As Arikpo reported, the events of the 1964 federal elections serious as they were, paled beside those which followed during the Western Region election a year later in 1965 during in which the electorate literally poured gasoline on opponents and set them on fire. The electorate literally took the laws into its hands and the Police seemed powerless. Following the events above, Nigerians believed that the military was the only institution in the country that could stop the political chaos and restore political order and stability, as well as public confidence (Ojibo, 1980). Subsequently, there was a military coup d’état on January 15, 1966, where some prominent Nigeria political leaders as well as some high ranking military officers were assassinated.

PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN NIGERIA IN PERSPECTIVE

The parliamentary system of government means a prime minister is the head of government, and the president is the head of state. The PM is chosen by a party, not directly by the people. In Britain, for example, the Queen/King is the Head of State, while the PM is being chosen by the party that wins the majority of the votes, or through a coalition.

Until the January 1966 coup of Nigeria, Nigeria was practicing a parliamentary system of government. Nnamdi Azikiwe was the President then, while Tafawa Balewa was the first and the only Prime Minister that Nigeria has ever had. It was a coup d'etat by renegade Nigerian Military officers that jettisoned the system and subsequently lead to the changing of the system of government in Nigeria from parliamentary to presidential.

Unlike the presidential, parliamentary system of government is less costly, as the PM and other ministers are 'part-time workers'. While in the presidential system, there are senior and junior full-time ministers. Also, the government is answerable to Congress, unlike in Nigeria, where the resolution of the National Assembly is useless. The parliamentary system is more suitable for multi-cultured countries like Nigeria, where regions can back a party based on their tribal and regional inclination.

The procedure for removing a president is much easier in a parliamentary system. Once the PM loses a vote of confidence, or his coalition partners pull off, then the government falls. But in the presidential system, there has to be a two-third majority in votes even before the trial commences. The president is called for a hearing, a committee is set by the chief justice, the report will come back to the National Assembly before the impeachment continues. This is too enormous in case of urgency.

Nigeria is a country where tribal, regional, and party sentiments surpass nationalism and patriotism. A tribal chauvinist is more honored than a nationalist. How can people of South-East continue to love Ojukwu - who intended to divide Nigeria - more than Gen T. Y Danjuma, Gowon and Buhari who fought for Nigeria's unity? If Nigeria's inclination is through tribal sentiments, then the parliamentary system is better for us.

If the parliamentary system is not be allowed to come back, why not consider adopting the Swiss style of government? In Switzerland, the parliament chooses people from major tribes (in the case of Nigeria), or regions. Each person will govern the country for a year, and then step down and become a minister. Thus, all hosen candidates do their single-year term before being replaced with other people.

Presidential System of Government

A Presidential System of Government is one in which there is an executive President, that is, someone vested with all executive powers and who combines the office of head of state and head of government. The President whose constituency is the entire country combines government powers with ceremonial powers, and is also commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

THE ORIGIN OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

On Saturday, October 18, 1975, the then Head of State, General Murtala Muhammed told the opening session of the 50 man constitution drafting committee at the Institute of International Affairs in Victoria Island, Lagos that “Supreme Military Council has carefully discussed and agreed on an executive Presidential system of Government”.

He said, among other things on that day, that his counsel “has agreed on an executive Presidential system of Government in which the President and Vice-President are elected, with clearly defined powers and are accountable to the people. We feel that there should be legal provisions to ensure that they are brought into the office in such a manner so as to reflect the Federal character of the country”. I was present at the event.

Of course, when the Supreme Military Council has “decided” at that time, who could undecide. That was the origin of our adopting the Presidential System of Government which has so far been operated by four presidents- Alhaji Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari, Chief Olusegun Okikiolu Aremu Obasanjo, Alhaji Umaru Yar’adua and the incumbent Goodluck Ebele Jonathan.

Judging by current Media reports it looks as if most Nigerians today view the Presidential system of government as defective. I say, most not all Nigerians for, the executives, the Legislators, and their aides will not agree with this view. Even within the government both in the centre and in the states, there are some top officials who have since discovered that this Presidential system of government will lead us to nowhere.

Yet it was not so thirty-eight years ago when the Presidential system of government was first introduced. Like a groom eager to have a bride, most Nigerians at that time applauded the Presidential system of government. At that time we were so enthusiastic that at last a major solution to our National problem has been found.

THE TRANSITION PROGRAMME THAT IS; FROM THE PARLIAMENTARY TO PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN 1979

The military decreed the presidential system of government, the constitution drafting committee recommended it and the constituent assembly approved it. It became operative on 0ctober 1, 1979. As a matter of fact when the then Head of state, late General Murtala Mohammed announced the adoption of Presidential of government in 1975 there was jubilation. He then announced the setting-up of a 50-man constitution drafting committee headed by Chief Rotimi William, former attorney General of Western Region and President of Nigeria Bar Association (1958-1968).

He then announced Mrs. O.O. Onajide, the former head of news and current affairs mid-west television and Mr. R.C.O. Owokedi senior assistant secretary cabinet office Lagos to assist Alhaji Gidado Idris as secretary to the committee. Those who served in the secretariat of the constitution drafting committee at that time included Mr. A. Obilade, Dr. O. A. Obozuwa, Mr. E. Omofuma, Mrs. A. T. Kole, Mrs. J.O. Adeyemi Wilson, Mrs. V.O. Odunuga, Mr. J. A. Adesanwo, Miss A. E. Anwana, Mrs. J.T. Okechukwu, Mrs. M.M. Albert, Mr. A.O. Iyiola, Mrs. P.C. Adele, Mrs. M. M. Wuraola, Mr. R.O. Akpabio and Mr. E. Ojogwu.

Late Chief Obafemi Awolowo declined to serve in the committee after he was appointed. Only two members of the committee objected to the Presidential system of government. They were Mr. Kanmi Isola-Osobu and Dr. Segun Osoba, then Senior Lecturer in History at the then University of Ife, now renamed Obafemi Awolowo University. The two of them wrote a minority report and recommended a socialist kind of government which was in operation at that time in Cuba and the old Soviet Union.

The rest 47 members endorsed the Presidential system of government. For the records, they are Dr. C. Abashiya, Dr. Kole Abayomi, Alhaji Abdul-Razaq, Dr. I. D. Ahmed, Mr. R.O.A. Akinjide, Dr. S.C. Aleyideno, Mr. Al-Hakim Ali, Dr. A.Y. Aliyu, Dr. S.A. Aluko, Mr. Michael S. Angulu, Alhaji Ardo Buba,, Alhaji Nuhu Bamali, Mr. Paul R.V. Belabo, Alhaji Mamman Daura, Dr. T.S. David-West, Dr. V.P. Diejomah, Mr. David D. Dimka, Professor B.J. Dudley, Dr. E.C. Edozien, Chief I. Ekanem-Ita, Dr. U.O. Eleazu, Professor E.U. Emovon, Alhaji Sule Gaya and Mr. Rasheed Gbadamosi.

Others are Dr. Tajudeen Olawale Idris, Bola Ige, Professor Obaro Ikime, Mr. S.G. Ikoku, Alhaji Ibrahim Imam, Alhaji Aminu Kano, Alhaji S.M. Liberty, Mamman Ali Makele, Col. Pedro Martins, Alhaji Shehu Malami, Dr. K.O. Mbadiwe, Chief I. I. Murphy, Professor B. O. Nwabueze, Professor G. A. Odenigwe, Dr. P. Okigbo, Alhaji Femi Okunnu,Dr. O. Oyediran, Dr. Ibrahim Tahir, Alhaji Ahmed Talib, Dr. M. Tukur, Mr. G. Unongo Paul, Dr. Y. B. Usman and Dr. Obi Wali.

After the setting-up of the Constitution drafting committee, the committee called for memoranda nationwide and 346 memoranda were presented to the committee. Among those who sent memoranda at that time were former President Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe who wrote on the Proposals For Reviewing the Nigeria Constitution, Chief Victor Attah wrote form Kaduna at that time defending a non-party system, Chief Ebenezer Babatope wrote as Secretary of the Social Reformance Movement of Nigeria and Dr. G.G. Darah wrote as the Secretary of the Nigerian Academy of Arts, Science and Technology.

Other notables who submitted memoranda included Chief N.U. Akpan, Chief Alade Lamuye, Professor Eme Awa, Chief Olu Akinfosile, Professor S.J. Cookey, Chief T.A. Fagbola, Chief F. J. Elah, Justice Salidu Kawu, Justice Kayode Eso, Justice V.E. Ovie-Whiskey, Chief D.K. Olumofin, Chief Kunle Otero, Chief Dennis Osadebe, Alhaji Yahaya Sanni.

After the Constitution Drafting Committee submitted its report, a Constituent Assembly was then inaugurated. Of the 248 members of the assembly only 32 were nominated by the government while the rest were elected. The assembly approved the Presidential system of government. Notable members of the assembly were Alhaji Shehu Shagari who became the first President under the Presidential system of government. Other notable members of that assembly were Dr. Chuba Okadigbo, Mr. Sisi Onoh, Alhaji Uba Ahmed, Alhaji Tatari Ali, Dr. Mudiaga Odje, Mr. Frank Alegbe, Professor A.F. Ali, Dr. Emmanuel Atanu, Mr. Paul Unongo, Mr. Mvenda Jibo, Alhaji Ciroma, Alhaji Kaloma Ali, Dr. Joseph Wayas, Mr. D. D. Etiebett, Professor Iyi Abubakar, Chief Sam Mbakwe, Dr. J.O.J. Okeize, Dr. Sylvester Ugoh, Alhaji Lawan Keita, Alhaji Umaru Dikko, Mr. Bisi Akinbobola, Alhaji Bello Maitama Yusuf, Alhaji Adamu Attah, Dr. Sola Saraki, Mr. S.A. Onitiri, Alhaji Suleman Takuwo, Chief M.K.O. Abiola, Alhaji Shehu Malami, Mr. Solomon Lar.

Now almost thirty-eight years after and with four Presidents who have operated the Presidential system of Government most of us are of the view that the Presidential form of Government is a liability in our quest for development. The system has given the key of the treasury to the Executives, Legislators and their aides to loot the treasury as they wish. The poor of yesterday have become instant billionaires all in the name of democracy. The people I mean the people are getting poorer every day and are being made to be beggars in their own land. Our type of democracy has made a mockery of handwork, honesty, and procedure.

Humble men of yesterday now in power in this country have suddenly turned to monsters, tyrants with an abundance of wealth stolen from the treasury all in the name of the presidential system of Government. Either we like it or not this system of government is killing us. It is so wasteful and too expensive to operate.

Aristotle wrote that” democracy is a government in the hands of men of low birth, no property, and vulgar employments” while Charles Loius de Secondat also wrote that “When a government lasts a long while, it deteriorates by insensible degrees”. George Bernard Shaw concluded that “Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few”.

Differences in parliamentary and presidential systems

Differences in Parliamentary and Presidential Systems are the election of the chief executive and the debate styles. The most striking difference between presidential and parliamentary system is in the election of the chief executive. In parliament systems, the chief executive is not chosen by the people but by the legislature. Typically the majority party in the parliament chooses the chief executive, known as the Prime Minister. However, in some parliaments, there are so many parties represented that none hold a majority.

Parliament members must decide among themselves whom to elect as Prime Minister. The fusion of the legislative and executive branches in the parliamentary system tends to lead to more discipline among political party members. Party members in parliaments almost always vote strictly along party lines. Presidential systems, on the contrary, are less disciplined and legislators are free to vote their conscious with fewer repercussions from their party. Debate styles also differ between the two systems. Presidential system legislators make use of a filibuster, or the right to prolong speeches to delay legislative action. Parliamentary systems will call for cloture or an end to debate so voting can begin

SUITABILITY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM

For the purpose of this topic, we will like to revisit the features of the Presidential system of government for us to ascertain how suitable it is in a multi-ethnic country like Nigeria. They are:

1.                  Separation of powers between the arms of government

2.                  President is both the head of state and head of government. This makes the President too powerful

3.                  President is responsible to the electorates

4.                  There is hardly any recognized opposition which is dangerous for democracy

5.                  Ministers are individually handpicked by the President and can be summarily dismissed by the President

6.                  The system is very expensive

Following the highlights above, most powers are concentrated in one man at the Centre and this cannot be suitable in a multi-ethnic society like Nigeria where there are issues of marginalization, resource control, power sharing issues, revenue allocation, agitation for secession, etc.

As evidenced today, there are too many responsibilities at the Federal level and it is therefore not surprising that the dividends of democracy hardly get to the grassroots. The medical, education and social standard in our villages are nothing to write home about. Majority of the citizens living in rural areas hardly feel the effect of government. This is not surprising for it is foolhardy to expect the central government in Abuja to know and solve the problems in every hamlet in Nigeria.

It is important in addressing this topic; the system of the government cannot be addressed in isolation of the structure of government. Both work hand in glove. In other words, if the system does not fit into the structure then there will be a misfit and the two will never be able to work in unison.

What do I mean? A Presidential system of government which by its nature cedes a lot of powers to “Mr. President” or maybe “Madam President” one day can only work in a democratic system where true federalism thrives. An executive President in a unitary system is a perfect recipe for chaos and absolutism.

LEGISLATIVE REGULATION OF THE TRANSITION AND ELECTORAL PROCESS, 1976-1979

Although the mandate of the constitution-making bodies instituted by the regime included the design of an electoral system, it was clear from the transition time-table that some elections would precede the final adoption of the recommended electoral system. Addressing this issue in its report, the CDC recommended, inter alia, that;

In communicating this decision to the federal military government, the CDC suggested that the decision was ‘not to be embodied in the draft constitution.’23 On 1 October 1976, two weeks after receiving the report of the CDC, the regime announced the appointment of a 24-member Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO) headed by Chief Michael Ani, a senior federal civil servant. The FEDECO was inaugurated in November 1976 by the new head of state, General Obasanjo, who assured the commission and the country that the regime would respect its independence including the security of tenure of its members.24 Six months after FEDECO was established, the regime finally legitimized it through the Federal Electoral Commission Decree25 of May 1977, which was given retroactive effect to 1 October 1976. This decree empowered the commission to:

·         organize and supervise all matters pertaining to elections into all the elective offices provided for in the Constitution, and elections into any legislative body provided for in that Constitution other than local government bodies

·         register political parties and determine their eligibility to sponsor candidates for any of the elections referred to in paragraph (a) above

·         arrange for the annual examination and auditing of the funds and accounts of political parties

·         carry out such other functions as may be conferred on it by law26

·         Delineate the country into constituencies for the purpose of organizing and contesting elections and registering persons eligible to vote in such elections.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Nigeria’s democracy has experienced a very rough history arising from several militaries coups leading to many years of military rules and the civil war of 1967 to 1970.  These together with ethnic sentiments, tribalism, religion fanaticism insincerity and greed by some politicians have hindered us democratic growth. In democracy, power belongs to the people, but in Nigeria’s democracy, power has been taking away from the people leading to distrust, inter-ethnicity rivalry, disagreement, and conflicts power tussle and the quest for secession.

References

Arikpo, O. (1967), Development of Modern Nigeria. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin War Books.

The Federal Republic of Nigeria, Reports of the Constitution Drafting Committee Containing the Draft Constitution, volume II. (Federal Ministry of Information, Printing Division, Lagos, 1976).

Gahia, Chukwuemeka. Human Rights in Retreat: A report of the human rights violations in Nigeria. (Civil Liberties The organization, Lagos, 1990).

Gboyega, A.E. The making of the Nigerian Constitution. In: Nigerian Government and Politics under Military Rule, 1966 -1979, Oyeleye Oyediran, ed. (Macmillan Press, London and Basingstoke, 1979).