Is Nigeria Caught in Another Merry-Go-Round? Unraveling the Journey from Parliamentary System to Presidentialism
Patrick I. Ukase,PhD
Prof of Political History & Dev.Studies,
Prince Abubakar Audu University, Anyigba-Kogi State
Recently , Sixty legislators in Nigeria’s House of Representatives sponsored a Bill canvassing for the reintroduction of the parliamentary system of government, which was jettisoned almost six decades ago. Typical with most Nigerian policies, those who initiated the Bill appear to be out of touch with the historical context of the failure of the parliamentary system of government in the First Republic. They are therefore quick to point to its “effectiveness” and “efficiency” while it lasted from 1960 to 1966.
In this essay, I dissect the factors that led to the abandonment of the Parliamentary System of Government in favor of the Presidential System. This foregrounds the argument that systems work when the operators-leadership and followers who are called upon to practicalise it are committed to its success.
The collapse of the Parliamentary System of Government in Nigeria in 1966, and the subsequent journey towards the reinstatement of democratic governance in 1979 initiated profound debates concerning the nation’s ideal governmental structure. The recurrent clamor for constitutional change in Nigeria back to the parliamentary system that was jettisoned fifty-eight years ago underscores a prevailing focus in Africa, and particularly Nigeria, on the form and institutional framework of governance, often overshadowing considerations of efficiency and the actual performance of its leaders. While the substance of governance undeniably holds significant weight, the configuration of government cannot be disregarded.
The structure of government and its institutional setup play a pivotal role in shaping the dynamics between those in power and the populace. It dictates the character of political parties, electoral processes, constitutional frameworks, citizenship rights, and other institutional mechanisms crucial for safeguarding citizen liberties and curbing the arbitrary tendencies of the state and its officials.
In Nigeria, however, the deficiency in leadership and the prevailing political ethos or the lack thereof profoundly influence the effectiveness and performance of any governmental system, whether parliamentary or presidential. Studies in Nigerian constitutional history underscore that the shortcomings of successive constitutions largely stem from the failure and reluctance of Nigerian leaders to operate within the confines of constitutional governance. The blame game, often directed at the constitution itself, fails to address the underlying causes of discord and political strife in Nigeria.
I strongly believe that the efficacy of a constitution hinges not solely on its design but equally on the caliber of individuals tasked with implementing it. In Nigeria, politicians steeped in the authoritarian culture inherited from colonial rule struggled to adapt to the Westminster Parliamentary democracy’s ethos of opposition tolerance, divergent viewpoints accommodation, and inclusive participation. Consequently, the institutionalized opposition within the nascent democratic framework lacked the requisite support, leading to a perception of opposition as personal animosity rather than constructive dissent.
Attributing the failure of the First Republic solely to the parliamentary system overlooks the deeper root cause: the misalignment of Nigerian values with democratic principles. Many politicians failed to grasp or accept the rules of democratic engagement, viewing politics not as a game of rules but as a battleground. This failure to adhere to democratic norms polluted the political arena and endangered both participants and observers alike.
It’s imperative to recognize that prior governmental systems in Nigeria did not inherently fail; rather, Nigerian actors consciously neglected their proper functioning. The ruling class, driven by a historic mission to exploit the nation’s resources, sought control of the state apparatus to facilitate their enrichment, effectively transforming themselves into a bourgeoisie class.
The call for instituting the position of President with executive powers in Nigeria predates the military’s intervention in politics. During the First Republic, political figures grew increasingly wary of the Parliamentary System due to the tensions it generated between the President (known as the Governor-General) as Head of State and the Prime Minister as Head of Government. Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the first indigenous Head of State, criticized the limited authority of the President under the Parliamentary System, advocating instead for a Governor-General with executive powers. Azikiwe’s discontent was evident in a 1961 lecture at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, where he passionately argued for Nigeria to become a Republic, with the Governor-General assuming the role of President with executive authority. He lamented the unequal distribution of power between the Governor-General and the Prime Minister, advocating for a more balanced arrangement.
Azikiwe reiterated his stance in 1965, emphasizing Nigeria’s unpreparedness for a Head of State with ceremonial powers in tandem with a powerful Head of Government. He proposed an elected President devoid of a Prime Minister, responsible for neutral spheres such as the military, navy, and police. Seven years later, another prominent nationalist, Obafemi Awolowo, proposed a plural executive system, advocating for separate roles of Head of State and Head of Government. He argued against burdening the Head of Government with ceremonial duties, especially in an underdeveloped nation.
Despite these propositions, analysts largely concurred that in Africa, it remained challenging for a Head of State to merely serve as a titular figure. Even if reluctantly accepted, clashes between the effective Head of Government and the ceremonial Head of State were inevitable due to this unfamiliar concept in African political culture.
Under the Parliamentary System practiced in Nigeria, the constitutional Head of State was expected to maintain neutrality and refrain from engaging in partisan politics. This requirement is fundamental to the effective functioning of the system. While such impartiality is attainable in countries like Britain, where the Queen or King is the Head of State, it posed significant challenges in Nigeria.
In Britain, the Queen’s upbringing in the seclusion of palaces, shielded from ordinary life, facilitated her ability to remain impartial and detached from political affairs. She transcends territorial divisions and political affiliations, symbolizing unity for the entire nation. Similarly, it was hoped that the Governor-General, as the Queen’s representative in an independent African nation, would uphold this tradition of political neutrality. Although he may have personal biases, they were expected to be secondary to his constitutional duties.
However, the Nigerian context presented a stark contrast. When Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe assumed the role of Governor-General in 1960, he made it clear that he would not refrain from public and political discourse. His vocal advocacy for a Republic with the Governor-General as President with executive powers challenged the traditional role of the Head of State. Despite Nigeria’s transition to a Republic in 1963, executive powers were not conferred upon the President, leading to Azikiwe’s frustration with the limited authority compared to the Prime Minister.
A comparative analysis of Azikiwe’s background with that of the British Queen highlights the difficulty in maintaining political neutrality. Azikiwe’s extensive political involvement and outspoken nature made it unrealistic to expect him to completely detach from partisan politics. His critiques of political nepotism and tribalism, while intended to be nationalistic, were often interpreted as favoritism towards his ethnic group and political party.
The prevailing atmosphere of ethnic tensions and distrust among Nigeria’s major ethnic groups further complicated Azikiwe’s ability to embody the impartiality expected of the Head of State. His perceived alignment with certain political factions during the 1964 Federal elections crisis eroded the symbolism associated with his office as the father of the nation.
In hindsight, it becomes evident that expecting Azikiwe to fulfill the role of a neutral “father-of-the-nation” within Nigeria’s Parliamentary System was unrealistic given the country’s complex political dynamics. The quest for a new constitution reflected a desire to avoid replicating the situation.
Another argument in favor of the Presidential System posits that it offers a clear delineation of executive power, potentially leading to swift actions and decisions, along with clear Executive accountability. Unlike the Parliamentary System where Executive authority is divided between different individuals representing disparate interests, the constitutional Head of State in a Presidential System holds formal authority, crucial during crises. However, the operational dynamics often lead to clashes of personality and authority between the effective Head of Government and the constitutional Head of State, resulting in governmental paralysis.
There is the conviction that society functions best under a Government with organized and unequivocal authority, while a plural authority structure can lead to confusion, conflicts, and a lack of accountability. The distinction between the ceremonial Head of State and the effective Head of Government, observed during Nigeria’s experimentation with the Westminster model, proved problematic, and contributed to the failure of the system and elsewhere in Africa.
Informed by Nigeria’s past experiences, the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) set up by the General Murtala Muhammed/General Olusegun Obasanjo concluded that a separation of the Head of State from the Head of Government would foster instability and jeopardize national unity. By investing executive power solely in the President, the CDC aimed to avoid such clashes and imbue the executive with efficiency, unity, and cohesion in addressing the country’s day-to-day affairs. The decision to recommend the Presidential System was driven by the imperative of achieving the citizens’ needs and aspirations, facilitated by a government structure free from internal conflicts and capable of decisive action.
An additional rationale for the adoption of the Presidential System of Government in Africa, and specifically in Nigeria, revolves around the quest for a distinct national identity independent of colonial influences. Advocates of this perspective argue that the transition from the Parliamentary to the Presidential System symbolizes a deliberate departure from the political structures inherited from former colonial rulers, thereby imbuing their governance systems with a unique national character. Presidentialism, in this context, is seen as the culmination of the nationalist struggle for emancipation from colonialism.
While political independence marked a significant milestone, it did not instantaneously erase the vestiges of colonialism deeply embedded within the social fabric of former colonies. Colonialism, with its enduring impacts, was widely perceived as a pervasive evil, perpetuating socio-political and economic dependencies inherited from the colonial era. The aspiration of post-colonial nations was to dismantle these structures and forge their own paths towards self-determination and self-governance.
Autochthony, or the quest for national identity, embodies the desire of formerly colonized nations to purge their political systems of imperialist influences and assert their distinctiveness. As Robinson suggests, it reflects a fundamental desire to give their governance systems a homegrown character, free from foreign impositions.
For Africans who inherited the British Parliamentary System, mere subordination to the United Kingdom’s governance framework was insufficient. They sought to develop constitutions indigenous to their own nations, untethered from foreign influence. The retention of the British monarch as the Head of State post-independence was seen as a stark reminder of colonial subjugation, with the Queen symbolizing British imperialism.
The consensus across much of independent Africa was that sovereign nations possessed the inherent right to revise their governance structures, particularly when such revisions aimed to sever ties with departing colonial powers. The perpetuation of allegiance to the British Crown post-independence was deemed incompatible with the principles of sovereignty and self-determination.
Leaders like Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana vehemently opposed the imposition of colonial constitutions, arguing that foreign symbols of authority undermined the sovereignty and dignity of newly independent nations. The immediate post-independence period was regarded as opportune for implementing constitutional reforms that aligned with the aspirations, values, and cultural norms of the people.
In essence, the transition to the Presidential System in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa symbolized a decisive step towards reclaiming national autonomy and identity, liberated from the shadows of colonial domination. It signified a collective endeavor to chart a new course of governance reflective of indigenous aspirations and values.
Another rationale for advocating the adoption of the Presidential System of Government in Africa, particularly in Nigeria, revolves around the quest for a governance model that aligns with traditional African political values and experiences. Proponents of this viewpoint argue that a nation’s constitution should reflect its people’s historical and cultural perspectives on governance. They contend that the Parliamentary System, with its separation of the Head of State from the Head of Government, does not resonate with the traditional African understanding of political authority.
In the eyes of these advocates, African traditional political structures are characterized by a clear and concentrated locus of power, typically embodied in a singular executive figure such as a king or chief. The concept of dual power structures or ceremonial roles, as seen in the Parliamentary System, is viewed as incompatible with African political norms. Hence, the call for a Presidential System that consolidates executive authority aligns with African political traditions.
Members of the CDC in Nigeria emphasized the need for a governance model that reflects the country’s unique cultural and historical context. They argued that the Westminster-style Parliamentary democracy imported from Britain did not suit Nigeria’s sociopolitical landscape. Instead, they advocated for a system that integrates ceremonial and executive functions, mirroring traditional African leadership structures.
This sentiment was echoed by Julius Nyerere, former President of Tanzania, who emphasized the importance of aligning the constitution with the traditions of the people to foster national unity and loyalty. However, while proponents of the Executive Presidency claim it to be in harmony with African values, critics argue that historical evidence for such claims is lacking. They suggest that the nostalgia for African political systems may be more of a rhetorical strategy than a genuine reflection of historical realities.
Traditional African societies varied widely in their political organization, from highly centralized kingdoms to decentralized and stateless communities. The notion of a single executive presidency may not universally reflect traditional African governance structures, as some societies were characterized by diffused authority among sectional heads rather than centralized leadership.
Therefore, while the argument for the Presidential System may appeal to notions of Africanism, its historical legitimacy and applicability across diverse African contexts remain subject to debate. Critics suggest that support for this system may be motivated more by a desire for change than a genuine reflection of traditional African political values.
One crucial consideration driving the endorsement of the Presidential System was the imperative to establish a more functional constitutional framework conducive to social, political, and economic development. This need played a pivotal role in the rejection of the Westminster System in favor of Presidentialism. The framers of the draft constitution recognized the importance of aligning the new law with the country’s needs and the aspirations of its citizens. They aimed to foster economic growth, modernize society, ensure stability, and safeguard civil liberties.
The separation of the Head of State from the Head of Government, as advocated by the Presidential System, was seen as essential to prevent conflicts of authority and promote national unity. The CDC emphasized the significance of investing Executive powers solely in the President to avoid clashes and empower the executive with energy, unity, cohesion, and efficiency in governance. This approach aimed to provide the President with a clearer direction in steering the affairs of the state, enhancing accountability, and minimizing bureaucratic hurdles.
Drawing inspiration from the success stories of countries like the United States, many African nations sought to emulate the Presidential System as a means to promote development. Leaders like Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana argued that the system could provide stability and decisive leadership necessary for progress. The system’s proponents underscored the importance of national integration and social stability as prerequisites for economic development.
Furthermore, the Presidential System was believed to offer unity, energy, and prompt decision-making, vital characteristics for effective governance. While collective decision-making has its merits, proponents argued that a single Chief Executive could act promptly when needed, preventing paralysis in government operations. This capacity for decisive action was deemed crucial for addressing pressing national issues and driving development agendas forward.
Ultimately, the adoption of the Presidential System in Nigeria was informed by historical experiences and contemporary realities, including the need to establish a powerful and centralized executive capable of propelling national development. Despite challenges, stakeholders recognized the system’s potential to align with Nigeria’s political landscape and address the country’s evolving needs.
A compelling rationale for justifying the adoption of the Presidential System of Government in Africa, particularly in Nigeria during the Second Republic, stems from the authoritarian command structure entrenched by military regimes. Transitions orchestrated by the military often exhibit a marked inclination towards the Presidential System. During Nigeria’s political transition from 1976 to 1979, General Murtala Mohammed, the Head of State at the time, specifically urged the CDC to earnestly consider the Presidential System of Government. Hence, it’s undeniable that one of the primary reasons for Nigeria’s adoption of the Presidential System in the Second Republic and subsequent eras lies in the profound transformations following the 1966 military coup.
An eminent consequence of these transformations was the excessive centralization, concentration, and personalization of power characteristic of military rule. This shift towards a more centralized federal government highlights the hierarchical nature of military bureaucratic organization as a contributing factor. It also underscores the military’s penchant for clear lines of authority and control inherent in the Presidential System, mirroring the authoritarian logic of military governance.
Ben Nwabueze further elucidates on the authority vested in the President as the Commander-in-Chief, aligning with the military’s established hierarchy of command. Structural and institutional changes, such as the proliferation of states and the expansion of federal power following the Nigerian Civil War, further bolstered the case for the Presidential System. Consequently, the debate over whether Nigeria should adopt a Presidential or Parliamentary System hinged on apprehensions surrounding the extensive growth of federal power.
Against this backdrop, it became evident that the military’s pivotal role in shaping Nigeria’s political landscape rendered the adoption of any governance model other than the presidential system highly improbable. With the Supreme Military Council (SMC) delineating the essentials of a new constitution, the CDC members were constrained to adhere closely to these directives, resulting in the overwhelming endorsement of the Presidential System in their report. The subsequent adoption of the Presidential System under General Ibrahim Babangida’s and General Abdulsalam Abubakar’s transition programs can be traced back to these foundational arguments, cementing the military’s enduring legacy in Nigeria’s governance structure.
In conclusion, Nigeria has experienced both the parliamentary and presidential systems, each accompanied by its own set of complaints and challenges. Reverting back to the parliamentary system, despite the myriad challenges it presented during its tenure from 1960 to 1966, is not a viable path forward. Nigeria cannot afford to embark on a merry-go-round by reinstating a system that previously failed with serious consequences. Instead, I advocate for the development of a uniquely tailored democratic system and structure that aligns with our needs, similar to the successful models adopted by countries like Ghana, Kenya, and South Africa. It’s time to move beyond this cycle of uncertainty and chart a path towards a stable, effective, and sustainable governance framework. Enough of this merry-go-round.
