MORE perspectives are emerging on the most suitable model of government for Nigeria as the National Assembly moves to amend the 1999 Constitution which several stakeholders have described as an unworkable piece of legislation. BIOLA AZEEZ writes on some of the new narratives.
THE recent amendment of the law concerning Nigeria’s National Anthem generated variegated narratives. The amendment drew flak from certain quarters, just as it elicited applause from certain individuals and groups. But one most striking criticism was the perceived accelerated process that culminated in the replacement of the hitherto national Anthem with the old one that heralded the 1960 Independence of Nigeria from the British colonial masters. Many wondered why the political cum ruling elite had not demonstrated similar zest and gusto in the quest to amend the subsisting Nigerian Constitution that was coupled by the military then under intense pressure to quit the stage. It has been the position of several Nigerians that the constitution is the bane of the multifaceted challenges that the country faces. Many have criticized the fact that humongous public funds have been spent to amend the constitution to meet the needs, wishes and aspirations of the people. One of the major criticisms of the 1999 Constitution is that it engenders a unitary rather than a federal arrangement. There have been symposiums, workshops, position papers that have regarded the 1999 Constitution as dysfunctional to the cause of the Nigerian State. Elder statesmen like Chief Edwin Clark and Chief Ayo Adebanjo, as well as the late constitutional lawyer, Professor Ben Nwabueze, have described the constitution as a fraud.
Calls for an enduring and stable political entity have revolved round the imperativeness of resource control (fiscal federalism), creation of state police, devolution of power and a return to regional structure as well as parliamentary system of government in place of the current federal arrangement. Former Lagos State Governor, Mr Babatunde Fashola (SAN) and Vice President Kashim Shettima recently expanded the discourse on the quest to have a workable document and governance system that can bring succour to the various components and ethnic nationalities of the country. On his part, Fashola is not persuaded by arguments in favour of jettisoning the federal system for the parliamentary arrangement that subsisted until the military putsch of January 1966. While he is not averse to the amendment of the constitution, he is of the firm belief that neither system is insulated from its negatives and positives. He points to the inadequacies of the parliamentary practice in the First Republic, as well as other countries like Japan, Britain and other nations that operate the system.
Fashola, at an event marking the 30th anniversary of Ghalib Chambers of Mallam Yusuf Olaolu Ali SAN, in Ilorin Kwara State, wants Nigerians to “think very deeply, ask ourselves why the parliamentary system failed us so woefully and whether we have overcome or can overcome those reasons. In addition to querying the system, we must query ourselves and decide whether we are the problem instead of the system. If we do these, we will find convergence at the point where we resolve to focus less on power and resource sharing and more on optimizing existing powers and resources for collective benefit.”
According to Fashola, the bottom line of the call to adopt a new system of government, a new document is Nigerians’ desire for a better life. He argues that constitutional amendment in itself cannot translate to accelerated national development nor will a president alone restructure the country by way of constitutional amendment without the concurrence of the National Assembly and the 36 states. For him, whatever value addition people perceive in a parliamentary system can also be realised under a federal system. Fashola stressed that what is most important is the sincerity of purpose by the elite. He said: “With very great respect to the proponents of this parliamentary arrangement, most of the reasons adduced such as cost of governance, rule of law, separation of powers, economic growth, etc can be achieved under a federal arrangement if there is sincerity of purpose and an elite consensus. I must express my admiration for their courage in proposing the radical change, but with respect, they have not yet advanced a compelling reason why we must return to a system that catastrophically failed us. It is possible that all the arguments are not yet laid bare, but we must all understand that whether it is parliamentary or federal, liberal democracy is now globally proving a difficult vehicle for development. The evidence before us shows that some of the countries delivering the best public goods to their citizens today are not liberal democracies, but I would still not trade the liberties of any democracy for any form of autocratic development.”
Of late, some prominent persons reawakened the agitation for a form of government that is in tandem with culture and tradition of Nigeria, nay Africa. One of the advocates is former head of state and president, Olusegun Obasanjo, who appears convinced that Western democracy has failed Africa. It will be recalled that former military president, General Ibrahim Babangida, also used the opportunity of his prolonged political transition programme during his eight years in office, to champion the advocacy of a home-grown democracy. His eventual decision to impose two-party structure on the country ended in a fiasco, when his government annulled the June 12, 1993 presidential election. Fashola, however, differs with the promoters of what he called Afro-democracy, the euphemism for home-grown form of government. He said: “Let me also be clear, that I am not by any criticism of liberal democracy a supporter of any Afro-democracy of yet undefined measures. The big challenge of democratic efficiency, in my view, is how to build consensus between the executive, legislative, and judicial arms without compromising the best interest of citizens.”
Quoting Wikipedia, Fashola listed the merits and demerits of both systems. For instance, he said the advantages of parliamentary system include adaptability, scrutiny and accountability; distribution of power and calling of elections. Its disadvantages comprise incomplete separation of power; legislative flip-flopping; political fragmentation and democratic unaccountability.
As far as Vice President Kashim Shettima is concerned, no matter the system of government that is practiced, there will still be agitations unless there is justice in the allocation of resources and distribution of dividends. He said the emphasis should not be on the form of government but quality governance and enhancement of the administration of justice. He said President Bola Tinubu believed in this imperative and has not attempted to influence the electoral process since his assumption of office. According to him, the president and the presidency decided to steer clear of the electoral process because of President Tinubu’s belief in political freedom, fair play and justice. “President Bola Tinubu never influenced the electoral process and we (presidency) never used instruments of office to hunt or hound perceived opponents.” Shettima said that democracy can only survive by adherence to the rule of law and quality of governance. “Many nations that collapsed did because of lack of access to truth and justice,” Shettima said.
But besides the quest for a change of the form of government, other issues have recently been striring the political waters of the Nigerian state. One of such is the report of a bill pending before the National Assembly seeking to return the country to a regional arrangement. Some notable organizations and caucuses, especially from the northern part of the country denounced the supposed bill and move to alter the existing structure, vowing to resist the attempt if it was made. The presidency and the National Assembly said there was no iota of truth in the report.
The issue of state police is another controversial matter, which a particular section of the country is believed to be opposed to, in spite of the wave of insecurity in the country. The majority leader in the Senate, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele marshaled arguments meant to disabuse the minds of those still averse to the creation of state police given current realities in the country. He said: “As currently constituted, the Nigeria Police does not possess any of these attributes, which I strongly believe, is central to crafting an alternative national security architecture that will guarantee the protection of lives and property. In other words, the dysfunctionality of the current police system directly correlates to the prevalence of criminal incidents in virtually all states of the federation. This further justifies the public demand for an alternative police system that can deepen internal stability and incentivise diverse investors from within and without.” However, Opeyemi asked a rhetorical question: Can we just adopt state police without addressing the concerns of its critics? He said that while he truly shares the fear of the critics that the governors can use the state police purely for private ends or such a police establishment may be too partisan in the discharge of its core mission, the legislators, who are the truly elected representatives of the people, are conscious of public concerns about adopting state police and are under obligation to address public trepidation with the spirit of non-partisanism. He assured: “We will convincingly deploy the instrumentality of ‘checks and balances’ to reduce, even completely discourage the use of State Police for private ends when eventually adopted.”
The idea of fiscal federalism constitutes another point of divergence in the political arena. Yet, the agitation for resource control is premised on the skewed existing resource distribution, generation and sharing among the components of the country, and which has entrenched injustices and ingenuity. Meanwhile, the Federal Government is at the Supreme Court over the issue of autonomy for local government as enshrined in the constitution. It seeks among other interpretation by the apex court on relevant sections of the constitution of accruals from the federal allocations to the local government. The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, through the suit, joined the 36 state governors as respondents.
Professor Pat Utomi, who was the Second Republic political adviser to the late President Shehu Shagari, however, blamed desperate politicians for part of the inadequacies that have characterized the presidential system in the country. He said such category of individuals tend to attach premium to the acquisition of personal possession at the expense of offering quality leadership and governance for the welfare and prosperity of the vast majority. Utomi said: “It is true that systems have consequences. A parliamentary system is much cheaper to run than a presidential system; even the nature of canvassing for the office which is the root of the corruption, is different. In terms of accountability, it is easier to hold people accountable in the parliamentary system because the government can fall at any time. Once there is a vote of no confidence, the government falls and a new government has to emerge. But, in the presidential system, the person holds you hostage for four years and you can’t hold them to account.”
The former presidential aspirant expressed deep concerns over how undue monetization has bastardised the presidential system whereby “one clown runs all over the country sharing money and the next morning, you call him President.” He opined that: “The problem is an elite crisis. We have elite that does not have development consciousness, an elite that is very shortsighted, an elite that is conscious of the quick gains that power gives it. This has been entrenched as the Nigerian way. In leadership in this part of the world, only few people look vigorously at how to solve problems. Most people expect to go to public office to make quick personal gains. Any system can work if the leaders are honest and understand the purpose.” As the debate rages on the appropriateness or otherwise of returning to the parliamentary form of government, the seeming consensus among a preponderance of the citizens is that the bane of Nigeria is the dearth of good leadership that can serve as catalyst for attitudinal change among those who seek to govern. According to observers, the ideals of accountability, transparency and discipline must take precedence over primordial factors and issues for the country to derive the benefits of whatever form of government it embraces.
ALSO READ: Newlywed woman cuts husband’s manhood in Kaduna