Debate participants vote in favour of parliamentary system of government.
Participants at the inaugural debate of the St. John’s Forum, held in Lagos Wednesday have voted in favour of the parliamentary government as the system of government that will serve Nigerians better than the presidential system the country currently operates.
Nigeria adopted the parliamentary system at independence in 1960 and up till 1966 when the military truncated democracy via a coup and counter coup.
But democracy was restored in 1979, the country adopted the president system which is in practice till date. But that has been consistent debate over which system is best for the country.
Part of that conversation is the debate organised by the St. John’s Forum. At the end of the debate titled: “Will Nigeria be better Served by a parliamentary System of Government?, which was moderated by former Commonwealth Secretary-General, Emeka Anyaoku, participants voted 57 to 33 in favour of parliamentary system.
The panellists for the debate included eminent Nigerians such as Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka, and a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Odein Ajumogobia, who argued in favour of parliamentary government as well as the Director, Legislative Support Services, National Institute of Legislative Services, Okechukwu Oko, who argued in favour of the presidential system and Associate Professor in African Politics at the University of Oxford, Raufu Mustapha, who was in favour of a hybrid system of monarchy.
While denouncing the cost of running the presidential system of government as presently constituted in the country, which he described as “staggering,” Mr. Soyinka argued that “any system is only as good as the quality of the humanity that runs it.”
He also frowned at the rationale for paying constituency allowances to legislators saying it is alien in a presidential system.
According to him the economics of both systems of government has to be considered. He said that corruption must to be plugged in any system of government. He however said, “it takes energy and money to check corruption loopholes.”
Mr. Ajumogobia said that the difference between the parliamentary and the presidential system of government lies in the relationship between the legislature and the executive.
He argues that the parliamentary system has “characteristics that make it essentially suitable for Nigeria.”
According to him, “the presidential system is a popularity contest, not a competence contest.” He said in a parliamentary system, the ruling party always put forward its best candidates as head of government unlike the case of the presidential system.
He also argues that because the parliamentary system has “a mandatory open debate, it creates greater accountability.”
He said in many instances in a presidential system, the president becomes less accountable to the people during his second term in office because he realises “he no longer needs to go to the people for votes.”
On corruption, he said it mostly depends on who operates the system. He however argued that the parliamentary system is more transparent than the presidential system.
He said often times the president can compromise public interest to satisfy private interest.
He concludes by saying that the parliamentary system provides greater opportunities to the people and serves a significantly higher chance of economic success.
On his part, Mr Oko said he prefers the stability of the presidential system of government. He argues that because it takes just a vote of no confidence to change a government in a parliamentary system, we might have “a vote of no confidence every other week” in the country.
He said because the people choose who leads them directly, rather than have representatives choose who lead as in the parliamentary system, the presidential system is more people oriented.
“The only way around is to redefine a system that is people oriented,” he said.
Also, he argued that Nigeria’s experiment with the parliamentary system of government only lasted for 6 years but presidential system has lasted for over 14 years in the country.
However, he said the system of government is not as important as the operators of the system. He said, “the job of a government is not just to lead but to heal old wounds.”
“Unless you address ignoble history you cannot forge ahead with a new system.”
Mr. Mustapha argued that instead of mere comparing the parliamentary system to the presidential system, it should be compared with other type of systems of government. He, in fact, advocated for the Monarchical system of government. He said the colonialist preferred this system of government for its efficiency and cost effectiveness.
“A modified version of Monarchical system is far cheaper to run. Nobody can dispute that the Monarchical system is more effective and cheaper,” he said. “It guarantee law and order and is closer to the people.”
He argued that the presidential system of government is costly and very corrupt. He also believed the parliamentary system is as problematic as the presidential system.
“The problem of a the parliamentary system in the 1960s are still there today; the difference is just in the scale”
“In Nigeria we are dealing with the depravity of a political class rather than the depravity of a ruling system,” he added.
Speaking from the audience Abiola Tilley-Gyado said the presidential system is too expensive and that Nigeria can barely afford it. She however said the best system is one where the fundamental human rights of everybody is respected irrespective of religion and ethnicity.
No comments:
Post a Comment