By Olu Fasan
THE recent introduction of a bi-partisan bill in the House of Representatives by 71 members seeking to return Nigeria to the parliamentary system of government was significant. But while the legislators’ action received a supportive shot in the arm from Afenifere, the Yoruba socio-cultural group, and Professor Ango Abdullahi, a chieftain of the Northern Elders Forum, it got a damning shot across the bow from Professor Itse Sagay, chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption.

Sagay

But Sagay’s intervention was unhelpful for two reasons. First, it was intellectually arrogant, with ad hominem attacks, calling proponents of the parliamentary system “ignorant”, “mischief makers” and “foolish”. Second, he came across as a Sophist, the kind Plato described in The Republic as prizing rhetorical point-scoring over philosophical truth.

Professor Sagay argued that it’s irrelevant which system a country adopts as “no system is better than the other”. Why, then, is it that only about 40 out of 193 members of the United Nations have full presidential system with an executive president, while the rest have a parliamentary or hybrid system? Why is it that 32 out of the 50 sovereign states in Europe practise the parliamentary system? Surely, there must be something that makes it more attractive than the presidential system.

And if one system is better suited for certain circumstances than the other, then it defies logic to argue that “the fault is not in the system, but in the operators”. If systems or institutions can’t constrain behaviours, why, for instance, do Nigerians drive recklessly in Lagos, but obey traffic rules in, say, London or New York? The answer is incentives. “An incentive”, the authors of Freakonomics argue, “is an object with astonishing power to change a situation”. And Douglas North, economics Nobel Laureate, said institutions are the most powerful incentives, with the power to shape economic and political behaviours. Truth is, parliamentary and presidential systems constrain behaviours differently.

But having argued, unconvincingly, that neither of the two systems is better than the other, Sagay then launched a frontal attack on the parliamentary system, using the UK practice as an example. Sadly, his arguments were full of factual errors, suggesting, even for a constitutional lawyer, a rusty knowledge of the British parliamentary system!

Professor Sagay said the British Prime Minister is so powerful he or she can call an election at will. Well, not under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Parliamentary term is fixed for five years, and the prime minister cannot call a snap election without the consent of parliament. Sagay also said that “the prime minister is the president and speaker of the House rolled into one”, implying that the speaker of the UK House of Commons is just a figure head. But that’s incorrect. The speaker is the highest authority of the House of Commons and his decisions in the House are final. The speaker’s position is so important that once elected, he or she must resign from his or her party to maintain political impartiality. Recently, prompted by the Opposition, the speaker ruled that the government was in contempt of Parliament for refusing to publish the legal advice on the Brexit deal. The advice was published swiftly after the ruling. That’s not a subservient relationship in which the speaker kowtows to the prime minister.

The prime minister is not, as Professor Sagay said, more powerful than a president. Hardly any president faces the same level of scrutiny as a British prime minister, who must appear before parliament once every week to answer questions from MPs, and up to six from the Leader of Opposition. One key advantage of the parliamentary system is the ability to scrutinise and hold the government accountable on a regular basis.

Of course, the parliamentary system is also the most representative, consultative and consensual form of government, which is why it’s better suited for ethnically diverse countries than a presidential system where excessive powers are vested in one person. As we’ve seen, the idea that a strong president can unite Nigeria hasn’t worked and can’t work. Why? Because a multi-ethnic country doesn’t need a strong president but a consensual and consultative leader, which is only possible under a parliamentary system.

Then, the economic argument. It’s a fact that the presidential system is expensive, and Nigeria can’t afford it while the vast majority of its citizens live in abject poverty. By contrast, parliamentarism will reduce the cost of governance.

https://newlive.vanguardngr.com/2018/12/2019-north-has-set-conditions-for-buhari-atiku-ango-abdullahi/

Finally, the links with corruption. Launching her book, Fighting corruption is dangerous, in London earlier this year, the former finance minister Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala was asked: What are the root causes of corruption in Nigeria? She replied that the presidential system was a major cause, saying that public funds were always diverted to finance presidential campaigns. As chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, Professor Sagay should recognise the links between the presidential system and corruption, but, alas, he didn’t!

Truth is, Professor Sagay is wrong on the parliamentary system; it’s the system of government Nigeria needs, together with regionalism. Let’s not diminish the debate on restructuring with ad hominem arguments and sophistry.

Compliments of the season, dear readers!