The debate over the desirability or otherwise of replacing the presidential system of government with parliamentary mode has been reignited by reactions elicited by the proposals before the House of Representatives for amending the 1999 Constitution under the 10th legislative assembly.

The push for return to parliamentary system was the highpoint of a policy dialogue recently organised by the Abuja School for Social and Political Thought (ASSPT) on new governance structure for Nigeria. The clamour for a change in the prevailing system of governance in the light of the glaring failings across the three tiers of government is neither misplaced nor arbitrary.

Nonetheless, it remains doubtful if the ills associated with politics and governance would be cured by simply discarding the presidential system for parliamentary arrangement. More intriguing is the impression that mere tinkering with the 1999 Constitution, by way of alterations rather than holistic and exhaustive process of making a new constitution, could possibly deliver a change from presidential to parliamentary system.

The proposed constitutional alterations to pave way for the return to parliamentary system therefore appears cosmetic, if not, diversionary. It is highly unlikely that the push for return to parliamentary system through alterations to extant provisions of 1999 constitution would not end up a mere legislative rigmarole considering the far-reaching implications on the existing political structures which serve to benefit some interests.

It could be justifiably argued that the presidential system introduced in the Second Republic through the 1979 Constitution has endured in spite of its shortcomings. Unfortunately, in spite of previous amendments to 1999 Constitution which were aimed at finetuning the system, the presidential system, as currently being practiced, appeared to have deepened power hegemony with ramified waste and corruption becoming the feature of governance.

It is indeed worrisome that the prevailing system has been grossly mismanaged with untoward exhibition of state power. A system that equates the office of the president to that of imperial king or where state governors carry on as lords of the manor is antithetical to democracy. To this extent, there is sense in which the propelling aversion for the continuation of the prevailing irrationality around the corridors of power has been misconstrued for the unsuitability of the presidential system in itself.

Notwithstanding the reservations about the presidential system, it should however be admitted that the federating units have coexisted in a more robust manner since the Second Republic compared to the shambolic, if not, chaotic relationship between the defunct regions and the federal government under the parliamentary system that prevailed in the First Republic.

The fact that several states have since emerged out of the defunct regional arrangement speaks to how far Nigeria has moved on since the aborted First Republic and more so detached from the rudiments of parliamentary system.

Decades after the regions were replaced by states, it is inconceivable that return to parliamentary system under a regional arrangement would be attractive or acceptable; particularly to constituent units that have continued to agitate for creation of states to engender more inclusive participation for better political expression under the presidential system. It would thus appear that those demanding for a return to parliamentary system through constitutional amendments either ignore the sensitive issue that borders on the history of agitations or simply pretend that the parliamentary system could be achieved without first addressing the concerns and fears of the constituent units about the possibility of conceding the latitude of democratic freedom and sense of belonging guaranteed under the prevailing presidential system.

Notwithstanding, how well the country has fared under the presidential system and in what direction going forward should however remain an engaging debate in the quest to sanitise the polity for overarching objective of making democracy work in the overall interest of the country.

Essentially, the call for the return to parliamentary system therefore raises a number of posers about the prevailing nature of politics and the character of political actors in Nigeria. It is pertinent to assert that political actors pushing for alternative to the presidential system of government do not, by any stress of imagination, enjoy the trust of the public to perform any better under the parliamentary system.

While the parliamentary system may appear attractive and justifiably seen as potential cure for the prevailing profligacy that has characterised governance under the presidential system, there is no assurance that the political class would demonstrate the temperance and sense of leadership needed to make the system work any better. It largely remains to be seen how the parliamentary system would serve as antidote to the high level of corruption in politics and governance.

Until and unless there is a radical change in the landscape of politics as well as attitude of the political actors, presidential or parliamentary system would be open to random abuses and impunity that profane the polity. Therefore, the challenge with political leadership and governance in Nigeria is much about the ills of politics than the desirability or otherwise of either the presidential and parliamentary system.

The reality however is that the country cannot afford to wait for return to parliamentary system before addressing the shortcomings that essentially boil down to waste and corruption in governance. The fact that these inadequacies have become so glaring and threatening the survival of the country makes the urgency of effecting changes in the system compelling; probably more than ever. For Nigeria, the choice between presidential and parliamentary system remains only a gamble if politics continues to be essentially transactional and without adherence to integrity, transparency and accountability. It must be emphasised that the problem with governance in Nigeria is more with the affliction of politics than the choice between the presidential and parliamentary system.