There was an eerie feeling of deja vu when 60 members of the House of Representatives announced on Wednesday that they are currently seeking amendments to the 1999 Constitution to transition from the current presidential system to the parliamentary system of government. Even with the current legislative traction, for many Nigerians, there’s something overtly familiar with this move as the country has long grappled with the idea of shifting back to the parliamentary system. In recent years, there has been a growing debate regarding the potential replacement of Nigeria’s presidential system with the parliamentary system of government.
Spearheaded by Rep Wale Raji, representing Lagos State, the lawmakers identified the need for reducing the cost of government, tackling the challenges of effective governance and robust policy debates among others as some of the reasons for demanding a return to the parliamentary system.
Titled, ‘The Bills proposing constitutional alterations for a transition to parliamentary system of government,’ the bill was sponsored by the House Minority Leader, Kingsley Chinda, and 59 others and read for the first time on the floor of the House during Wednesday’s plenary session.
The lawmakers – drawn from different party affiliations, anchored their positions on the need to adopt a parliamentary system at the Federal, State and Local Government levels.
Spokesman for the sponsors, Rep Abdulsamad Dasuki, member representing Kebbe/Tambuwal Constituency, Sokoto State, said that when passed, it would significantly impact the national political landscape.
Addressing a press conference at the National Assembly Complex on Wednesday, Rep Dasuki said, “Our founders in their wisdom and in a political atmosphere devoid of compulsion, and having considered the interests of their native peoples and their desire to live together in a country where truth and justice reign, where no man is oppressed, and where all citizens live in peace and plenty, adopted the parliamentary system of government.
“That was the governance system of the First Republic, a period when legislative and executive powers were exercised by the representatives of the people in parliament and in the executive, and by the nature of the system, these representatives were accountable to the people.
“For six years while it was in operation, the system worked for the country…The collapse of the First Republic and the long stretch of military rule culminated in the adoption of a new system of government, theoretically fashioned after the presidential system of the United States but in practice, imbibed the uttermost attributes of military rule.
“No wonder the Nigerian President appears to be one of the most powerful presidents in the world. Over the years, the imperfections of the presidential system of government have become glaring to all, despite several alterations to the constitution to address the shortcomings of a system that has denied the nation the opportunity of attaining its full potential.
“Among these imperfections are the high cost of governance, leaving fewer resources for crucial areas like infrastructure, education, and healthcare, and consequently hindering the nation’s development progress, and the excessive powers vested in the members of executive, who are appointees and not directly accountable to the people.
“The bills presented today (Wednesday) seek a return to the system of government adopted by our founders, which made governance accountable, responsible and responsive, and ultimately less expensive.”
While these lawmakers consider a shift from the presidential system to the parliamentary system, it is pertinent, at this point, to carefully explore the rationale behind this move, analyze the potential benefits and drawbacks, and consider the implications for Nigeria’s political landscape.
Nigeria has experienced a tumultuous political history since gaining independence in 1960. The country’s presidential system, adopted since 1979 at the inception of the Second Republic, has been criticized for its associated challenges, including power concentration, executive dominance, and a lack of accountability. Proponents of the parliamentary system argue that it offers a more balanced and accountable form of governance, where power is distributed among multiple political actors.
One of the key advantages of the parliamentary system is the distribution of power among multiple political parties. In a presidential system, power often becomes concentrated in the hands of the executive, leading to potential abuses and a lack of checks and balances. By adopting a parliamentary system, Nigeria could foster a more inclusive and accountable political culture, where decisions are made through deliberation and consensus-building among various elected representatives.
Secondly, the parliamentary system is known for its flexibility in responding to changing political circumstances. Unlike the presidential system, where the executive and legislative branches operate separately, the parliamentary system allows for a closer relationship between the executive and legislative arms. This enables the government to respond swiftly to emerging issues and enact necessary reforms, minimizing bureaucratic hurdles and enhancing governance efficiency.
Nigeria’s political landscape is characterized by ethnic, religious, and regional diversity, which often leads to fragmented party systems and challenges in forming stable governments and encourages coalition-building, as parties must work together to form a majority government.
In a parliamentary system, the executive is accountable to the legislature, allowing for regular questioning and scrutiny of government policies. This enhances transparency and reduces the risk of executive overreach, as the government must maintain the confidence of the legislature to remain in power.
Similarly, the parliamentary system promotes swift decision-making, as the executive and legislative branches are closely integrated. This can lead to faster policy implementation and a more agile response to emerging challenges, enabling the government to address pressing issues effectively.
While the parliamentary system offers the potential for stability through coalition-building, it can also lead to frequent changes in government. If parties fail to form stable coalitions, the country may experience a lack of continuity, which can undermine long-term policy planning and implementation.
Several countries have successfully transitioned from a presidential to a parliamentary system, demonstrating the feasibility of such a shift. These countries include France which transitioned from a semi-presidential system to a parliamentary system in 1958 when the French Constitution was amended to establish the Fifth Republic, which strengthened the role of the Prime Minister and the Parliament. While the President still maintains significant powers, the transition led to a more balanced distribution of authority between the executive and legislative branches.
Another country is Italy which underwent a transition from a presidential to a parliamentary system in the aftermath of World War II. The country had experienced political instability under a presidential system, which led to the adoption of a parliamentary system with a bicameral legislature.
Following World War II, Germany transitioned from a presidential system to a parliamentary system. The Basic Law, Germany’s constitution, established a parliamentary system known as the “Bundestag” (Federal Diet). The Federal Chancellor, the head of government, is elected by the Bundestag, which provides checks and balances and promotes consensus-building through coalition governments.
In 1987, South Korea shifted from a presidential system to a parliamentary system in response to public demand for greater democracy and political accountability. The revised constitution established a parliamentary system with a more powerful National Assembly and a Prime Minister accountable to the legislature.
It is important to note that the success of these transitions depends on various factors, including the country’s political culture, historical context, and the willingness of political actors to embrace the new system. Each transition has its unique circumstances and challenges, and careful planning, public participation, and institutional reforms are essential for a smooth and successful transition.
Because implementing a new system of government in present day Nigeria will require significant institutional and constitutional reforms, it will necessitate the executive arm at national and sub-national levels to eschew its overbearing and megalomania tendencies to ensure the passage of the Bill into law and a successful transition. Transitioning from a presidential to a parliamentary system would also require rewriting key constitutional provisions and realigning political dynamics. Such a transition may face resistance and logistical challenges.
