Neither presidential nor parliamentary

While our past and present leaders and other beneficiaries of our current dysfunctional structure continue to play the ostrich, a bill to return Nigeria to the parliamentary system of government sponsored by 71 members of the lower house passed its first reading at plenary last Thursday . The lawmakers whose membership cut across party lines  are seeking an amendment to the 1999 Constitution to revert from the current presidential system to the parliamentary system, first introduced by 1954 Lyttleton constitution and was in operation until  the first republic was wrecked in 1966 by military self-proclaiming messiahs.

They advanced reasons for their proposed bill. “Studies”, according to them, “have shown that countries run by presidential regimes consistently produce lower output growth, higher and more volatile inflation, and greater income inequality relative to those under parliamentary ones”.They also spoke ofquick passage of economic bills due to the fusion of power that it embodies and promotion of”inclusion and collectiveness, which is critical to equality of income distribution and opportunities.”

With frustrations because of resistance to change, it is easy to find justification to dump the current dysfunctional system. For instance, unlike what we today have under the presidential system where lawmakers elected on the platform of the same party works against the interest of theirparty, the executive branch of governmentin the parliamentary system has the direct or indirect support of the parliament.

It is bad enough that we run a unitary system where 36 states and 774 LGAs look up to the centre for survival and fraudulently insist it is federal. But the problem is not in the label but in the character of our leaders who shamelessly exploit the virtues of the labels for personal gains at the expense of the nation.

But I think what we need first is restructuring. It is the structure that defines the system. This has been the experience of India parliamentary system where the prime minister determines when a state which threatens stability of India ceases being a state. It is France’ structure that determined her hybrid system. It is similarly the structure of the US after their civil war and that of Germany at the end of World War 2 that determined their federal systems. It is on record that the golden era of our country was when we practiced parliamentary system as dictated by our structure between 1954 and 1966 contrary to the claim by the military that it introduced presidentialism in response to restiveness and acrimonies that defined the first republic.

Once again, a brief journey through memory will reveal how and why we derailed. In the run up to independence, the preoccupation of the dominant ethnic groups – Hausa/Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba was the struggle for the control of their regions. And their weapons of war were their ethnic based political parties: Northern People’s Congress, (NPC), National Council of Nigeria and Cameroons (NCNC), and Action Group (AG).  But besides the dominant ethnic groups,there were also sub-national groups located within each of the dominant regions that equally craved for self-actualisation within the greater Nigerian nation. And to throw away the hegemony of their local oppressors, they sought the help from political enemies of their local oppressors. It was a win-win situation for the ethnic based parties that needed alliances to win election at the national level.

Unlike Awolowo’s colleagues such as Bode Thomas, S L Akintola, RotimiWillaims and others in AG, who were satisfied with regionalism which as far as they were concerned was enough to prevent the country from being run by a one-eye king, Awolowo, whether  driven by his believe in federalism, the object of his lifelong research which resulted in his “path to Nigerian freedom” – a treatise on managing crisis of social dislocations in a multicultural Nigeria or  by his ambition to rule Nigeria one day, became the chief crusader for minority rights. In the process, he stepped onAhmadu Bello’s toes.

One must also appreciate the fears of Ahmadu Bello who regarded Awo’s attempt to liberate those he described as his grandfather’s slaves as an attempt to undermine his authority in his region. This was an era when democracy, the new value system that places emphasis on individuals as against group, was yet to be fully embraced in the more educationally advanced Western Region where the deadly struggle between Alaafin of Oyo and Bode Thomas led to the deposition of the former and the sudden death of the latter. There was also Ife where an attempt by Fani-Kayode (born in London, groomed in Lagos) to treat Modakeke farmers and potential voters as equal with Ife landowners set him against the Ooni and  led to his loss of two consecutive elections before decamping to NCNC in 1959.

But in 1962, Ahmadu Bello got his pound of flesh by supporting Akintola in his bitter struggle against his party. The coalition partners (NPC and NCNC) in breach of the constitution, interfered in the affairs of the west, declared state of emergency, sent Awo to detention, imposed Akintola who had been constitutionally removed by the governor of the west as premier, without election. Then the coalition partners  while ignoring agitation for state creations by restive minority groups in the north and east, went on to create Midwest in an effort to weaken the political base of Awolowo, the self-appointed  minority rights chief crusader.

The 1963 republican constitution merely reinforced the lopsidedness of the federation. This effectively left the north with bigger land area and more population than the southern regions, to rule in perpetuity since democracy is a game of numbers.

The 1964 disputed federal election led to constitutional crisis between the president and the prime minister during which both sought the help of the military. In the end, it was resolved in favour of the prime minister. The northern-controlled federal government, now used to having its ways, went on to supervise the rigging of 1965 Western Region election on behalf of embattled S.L Akintola. An attempt by the Sardauna to impose a premier rejected by the people on the west led to an orgy of violence.

The Ironsi-led military junta that emerged after January 1966 coup, the MurtalaMuhammed and Theophilus Danjuma-led vengeance coup of July 1966, the plunging of the nation into a civil war by Ojukwu and Gowon,  Murtala/ Obasanjo, Buhari/Babangida/Abacha and Abdulaslami Abubakar juntasthat seized resources of regions to fund new states and LGAs created to consolidate the lopsidedness of the north, were proxy wars on behalf of the east and the north that have held the nation to ransom since 1966.

The mandate of custodians of our constitution and their ‘newbreed’ politicians was as clear in 1966 as it is today. In 1966, it was to deal decisively with those who betrayed the letter and the spirit of the constitution and made change impossible. That simple task was elusive 52 years ago just as it is today with our current leaders’ continued resistance to restructuring without advancing a superior argument to prove it is not all about maintaining the status quo.