Senate Presidency: Some constitutional misadventure
WHEN American founding fathers gathered in Connecticut some time in 1787 in order to fashion a constitution that would herald a new union, one very contentious issue was how to reconcile the fears of smaller states about the dominance and possible oppression of larger ones. The controversy was resolved by a decision to have two Houses, one in which the states were to be represented on the basis of population while the principle of equality of states was firmly established in the other.
Today, the State of California, with a population of 38,332,521 inhabitants, has 53 lawmakers in the House of Representatives, while Wyoming, with a mere population of 582,658, has only one. However, California and Wyoming (as well as other states) are equally represented in the Senate by two senators each.
The philosophy or principle of equality of states also informed the decision of the founding fathers in giving the role of Senate President to the Vice President. However, the Vice President does not participate in senatorial deliberations, all he or she does is to cast the deciding vote in case of a tie. Joseph Story explains the rationale in his book, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:
“… allowing the Vice President to preside over the Senate and to vote in the case of a tie, solved two important problems. Firstly, it allowed that body – at all times – to come to a definitive resolution, because the President of the Senate would break tie votes. Secondly, it preserved the equality of the states in the Senate. Should a senator be chosen to preside over the body and should that Senator cast the tie-breaking vote, a state would, in effect, increase its representation.”
It would appear from the above arguments or explanations, that the authors of the Nigerian presidential constitution were more concerned with the structures of government in a successful democratic state than the principle or philosophies behind those structures. Going by the acrimonies that have consistently surrounded the election of the Senate President in Nigeria, and of course, the overbloated egos that go with it, one would assume that the American approach is the more reasonable one. A mere disagreement on the floor of the House, or a change in the composition of political party representation, could mean the Nigerian Senate President would be replaced. A couple of them had either been impeached in the past or forced to resign.
Now, to the legislature generally. Dynamism and independence in the legislative arm of government are critical to the success of the principle of separation of powers, the very engine of the presidential system of government. In theory, an independent candidate can be President by election. Such a person would still have to work with a legislature composed of elected party politicians. And, as is currently the case in the United States of America, a President can also belong to a political party that does not boast the majority of seats in the legislature. Such a President would still have to rely on that legislature for the passage of his or her bills. It would be a case of a dynamic President working with a dynamic and patriotic legislature.
The American situation is considerably helped by the very nature of the nation’s complexities and those of its political parties. The American political parties are almost non-existent at the federal level; they are mere electoral machines, with members converging once every four years at national conventions for the purpose of selecting or endorsing presidential and vice presidential candidates. The eminent political scientist, Professor Arend Lijphart, describes the American party system as “at best loose alliances of highly disparate interests” and “like a four-party system consisting of liberal Democrats, conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans”, “a six-party system with left, centre and right wings in each party”, or “even a hundred-party system with different Democratic and Republican parties in each of the 50 states.” (Quoted in my book, Party Coalitions in Nigeria, p133).
The Nigerian party system is still evolving and the tendencies described above could very well be replicated in our shores. Be that as it may, the American political parties complement the practice of presidential politics. There is hardly anything like “party supremacy”, that concept is reserved for the practice of politics elsewhere. The political parties of American-type presidential democracy are programmed to be able to work together, so our journalists should help educate our people by putting a stop on concepts such as “opposition party” or “ruling party” and substitute the more acceptable concepts of “minority party” or “majority party”, whenever they are reporting on political matters. Professor Mike Ikhariale forcefully articulated similar views in a recent article.
Any scholar or politician wanting to understand the influences on the voting behaviour of the American legislature is invited to read the brilliant book by David Mayhew, Congress: the Electoral Connection. The basic thesis of the book is that the American legislator is motivated by an ambition to be re-elected (elections to the House of Representatives take place every two years). The American legislators vote according to their consciences, the predominant opinion in their various constituencies, and the direction of their future ambitions. For instance, a Senator eyeing up the presidency would want to be seen as a national politician rather than a political pugilist of state or senatorial constituency interests. With voters themselves showing an active interest in how they are governed, it is always the “supremacy of the electorate” and not that of the party that prevails.
•Dr. Akinola wrote from Oxford, United Kingdom.
Related
Latest
Get the latest news delivered straight to your inbox every day of the week. Stay informed with the Guardian’s leading coverage of Nigerian and world news, business, technology and sports.
5 Comments
all these rubbish sponsored articles. must we always do everything that USA does. we have had senate president since obj time, why is it now that we need a vp to precide over the senate. with that kind of oxford education, i expected akinola to have more class than colonial advise he is giving. all these tinubu boys should come to terms on time that saraki is senate president for good.
Some Nigerians will never fail to amaze me. Obviously Prince T either didn’t read or didn’t understand this article before commenting. I fail to see the reference to Tinubu or his so-called boys in this very educating article. Nigeria borrowed a Constitution that doesn’t suit her from United States of America, decided to practice same in lopsided fashion without taking into consideration our own peculiar circumstances. Here is Dr Anthony Akinola, an internationally-recognised authority on the subject matter trying to educate us on this subject matter; for which we should be grateful. And here you are trying to impugn his hard-earned integrity by calling his objective article a sponsored one! For your information, Dr Akinola is not that type of character, thank you!
Some of us have been asking why a poor country such as Nigeria should have a Bicameral Legislature. Thanks to Dr Akinola, one now know the history behind it despite the fact that one is still not sure that the system suits Nigeria.
too much grammar and long sentences without meaning. you guys should learn how to communicate. Dr akinola an internationally recognised authority on what?????? should we thank him for taking us back to slavery???? must we be american to be good???? have you not seen African american recently going back to their roots????? as smart and highly educated as you are, you want to tell me that tinubu is not the cause of all the fall out of constitutionally conducted elections in the senate. would UK accept the kind of scrap going on in their own house of commons. 30 apc chairmen visited saraki yesterday only sw and benue chairmen did not attend. pls use your brain to figure that out, if tinubu was not involved.
Presidential system: Cause of Nigeria’s economic problems (1)
Written by:
Afe Babalola
“The period of military interference in politics in Nigeria also brought with it the enthronement of the Presidential system of Government which in my estimation accounts for many of the ills currently associated with Nigeria”
NIGERIA has since 1914 gone through many phases in its political development. It has passed through the colonial era, the period of agitation for independence prior to 1950, the self-governance period of 1950-1960 the post-independence period of 1960-1966, the military era of 1966-1979, the period of democratic rule of 1979-1983, another military era of 1983-1999 and the current democratic dispensation which started in 1999. The colonial era brought about economic stability in the administration of the country. This economic stability continued in the period after independence as the country was administered on regional basis, as the founding fathers of the country, conscious of the realities of the time and the diversity of the ethnicities that make up Nigeria, strove to make that diversity a source of strength for the overall development of the Country. They therefore strengthened the Regional System of government and under them, the regions were able to develop economically and politically. Each region, in an atmosphere of healthy rivalry competed with the others in a bid to provide the basic amenities of life for the citizenry. They placed a huge premium of agriculture and were able to generate income sufficient to put in place long lasting policies and infrastructure many of which serve to this day, as a testament to the greatness of Nigeria. This however did not last as the military incursion into politics which started in 1966 brought with it a regression of the gains of the founding fathers.
Furthermore, aside from the brutish nature of their rule, a fact which is well documented, the period of military interference in politics in Nigeria also brought with it the enthronement of the Presidential system of Government which in my estimation accounts for many of the ills currently associated with Nigeria. The system which was copied from the American system of Government was firstly introduced by the 1979 Constitution. Since then it has been modified several times in a never ending bid to make Nigeria fit the system at all costs. I have always been a critic of the Presidential system and as a matter of fact, the suitability of the system for Nigeria is one issue on which former President Olusegun Obasanjo and I do not agree. It is simply too expensive to operate and is a huge drain on scarce resources. A pointer in this regard is the meeting, on the 17th June 2015, of all State Governors on the dire financial position of the states which has led to their failure to pay salaries and meet the most basic needs of the people. Over the past couple of months the states had all witnessed a reduction from revenue accruable to them from the Federation Account. Last year one of the Governors had warned that most of the states would soon get to the point where they would be unable to pay wages.
PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM AND HIGH COST OF GOVERNANCE
I have over the years stated the problems associated with Nigeria’s over reliance on oil revenue vis-à-vis the high cost of governance in Nigeria. I have delivered lecturers and written articles on the issue. I also, during the siting of the last Constitutional Conference devoted several articles in these series to discussions of how best the cost of governance could be reduced.
Nigeria at the moment operates a bicameral legislative system comprising of the Senate and the House of Representatives. At the state level, there are 36 Houses of Assembly and 774 local governments. The executive at the Federal level comprises of the President and a high number of ministers. At all levels, there are special advisers, personal assistance, secretary, orderly etc. Owing to constitutional requirement that each state be represented on the federal cabinet, some ministries have too ministers assigned to them. Interestingly, the Federal cabinet in the United States of America consists of about 20 persons much less than the number in Nigeria.
The states are also not left out as each state has an equally high number of Commissioners. At the federal level, the judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Federal High Court, and National Industrial Court. In addition each State has its own High Court comprising of a Chief Judge and a number of High Court Judges.
The effect of the above is that the cost of running government in Nigeria is astronomically high. It is reported that the Senate of Nigeria with 109 members has 54 committees and that the House of Representatives with 360 members has 84 committees. However, the Senate of the United States of America with 100 members and the House of Representatives with 435 members have only 21 committees each. Yet in Nigeria, each committee receives funding for its activities including salaries and emoluments for the members. It is estimated that it costs about N320 million to maintain a legislator per annum. According to a former minister, Federal legislators and their support staff at the National Assembly spend about N150 billion a year.
To support the executive, legislature and judiciary at the Federal and State levels, each state and the federal government maintains a civil service. There are also countless parastatals and agencies which end up performing the same tasks. The only difference between the Economics and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) is said to be the fact that whilst the former is concerned with the investigation of financial crimes, the latter is saddled with the responsibility of investigating cases of official corruption. Each body despite the similarity in their functions, receive allocations from the National Treasury to support their organizational structures and functions. There is also the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), Nigerian Civil Defence Service Corps (NCDSC), National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP), Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) and numerous others saddled with law enforcement duties. Yet in this same country we have the Nigeria Police Force which constitutionally and statutorily is the number one law enforcement body but which has had its duties eroded by some of those mentioned.
To sustain a huge work force comprising of political office holders and career civil servants, the federal government of Nigeria expends about 70% of its annual budget. As a result of this government lacks the funds necessary for development. Several sectors of the national economy such as power, housing, health, education, transportation, etc have all been deprived of much needed funding.
How did we get to this point? I know for a fact that the cost of governance in Nigeria was not always this high? Where then did we get it wrong? I will examine these and more next week.
Presidential system: Cause of Nigeria’s economic problems (2)
“The background and history of United States of America do not justify the application of presidential system of government to Nigeria. The adoption and wholesale application of American federalism and Presidential System of Government by the Military is a monumental mistake in the first place. The importation of the system has not done the Country any good at all. That is the bitter truth.”
The media has reported that the President had approved a bailout of N413.7 Billion for the Federal and state governments. The money is meant to permit the payment of outstanding salaries to workers across the Federation. This is in addition to other measures designed to alleviate the economic crisis currently being encountered by the country which is directly traceable to the huge cost of governance in the country, a topic which I have addressed on several occasions and which I again, given the present realities, reintroduced last week. As I stated last week, the cost of governance was not always this high and the current problems have been brought about by a host of factors including mismanagement and the unnecessary adoption of the hugely expensive American presidential system of government.
HOW WE GOT HERE
The Presidential system of government was introduced into Nigeria by the military through the 1979 Constitution. This system of government traditionally has at its head, an executive president who presides over the Federal Government. It is characterised by a bicameral legislature. The executive and legislative arms of government are normally replicated across the federating states. In foisting the Presidential system on Nigeria, the military had little regard for the peculiar nature of the country. It has been argued, albeit lamely, that in deciding to jettison the parliamentary system of government put in place by the founding fathers of the country, that the military wanted to avoid a situation in which the two heads of state, one ceremonial and the other executive (as exists in a parliamentary system) would work at loggerheads leading to unnecessary ethnic or tribal strife if they hailed from different sections of the country. However events in Nigeria since 1963 continue to show that the decision to adopt the Presidential system was not well thought-out.
Firstly the American form of Presidential system of government currently being experimented by Nigeria is too expensive for our resources to conveniently accommodate. It is high time we faced the reality of our existence. Having regard to the history of America and its resources of the American Presidential system of government is perfectly suitable for its federalism which is being operated religiously and in accordance with the tenets of their union. The same situation, background and history do not justify its application to Nigeria. The adoption and wholesale application of American federalism and Presidential system of government by the military is a monumental mistake in the first place. The importation of the system has not done the country any good at all. That is the bitter truth. The application of the American presidential system in Nigeria has been nothing but a huge failure. We simply cannot afford 36 Houses of Assembly, 36 cabinets of commissioners, large number of state legislators, National Assembly of more than 400 legislators, thousands of staff for all these offices, over 40 federal ministers and numberless staff and assistants. On the 10 September, 2010, THISDAY Newspaper reported as follows:
“The amount expended annually to sustain members of the legislature in the states and National Assembly, many believe, is mind-boggling. Sources close to THISDAY revealed that the country spends N27 billion per annum on the salaries and emoluments of 109 senators while 360 members of the House of Representatives gulp down N73 billion, bringing the total to N100 billion ($667 million) expended on just 469 elected public officials.
When the emoluments, “constituency allowances” and other visible and invisible benefits paid to state legislators in each of the 36 states as well as the 7,888 councillors who make bye-laws in the 774 local government areas, the annual cost of sustaining the entire army of 17,500 individuals holding political offices in the executive and legislative arms of government in Nigeria would amount to N1.3 trillion.”
The consequential fragmentation of Nigeria into 36 states is unhelpful. Most of the so-called states were formally local governments or provinces. Such local governments were manned by District Offices and or Assistant District Officers. The provinces were manned by Residents, supported by Chief Clerk and Clerks. The substitution thereof of these District Offices and Residents with Governors, Deputy Governors, and Legislative Houses is most unreasonable and uneconomical. The sight of these governors driving round in convoys of as many as 30 to 40 cars and motorcycle outriders worries the ordinary citizens who cannot afford three square meals, whose taps are dry and whose children are either unable to attend school due to non-payment of school fees or who are unemployed after laboring to get an education.
In the United States of America, the federating states still possess a huge measure of independence. Thus each state is within clearly defined but expansive limits responsible for a remarkable number of aspects of its existence. The Federal Government is limited only to such matters as defense, foreign policy etc.
It is worthy of note that the entire revenue of the Federal Government of Nigeria is lower than that of Texas which is the second most populous and second largest state in the United States of America. If Nigeria’s revenue is therefore lower than that of one of over 50 states in the United States how can we hope to continue to copy and fund the Presidential system of government as practiced by the Americans?
THE BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE
A critical feature of the American System is the Bicameral Legislature comprising of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate is made up of 109 Number of senators; the house of Representatives has 360 members. However, the problem in Nigeria is that so much funds are expended yearly on maintaining the National Assembly. Each Senator and each member of the House of Representatives is entitled to high remuneration inclusive of benefits. They also employ staffers who aid them in the discharge of their legislative duties. As legislative work is not limited only to attendance of the sittings of each chamber of the National Assembly, Senators and Members of the House of Representatives also functions at Committee level, the said committee having been established to oversee every aspect of national life. The work of these committees often involves a lot of travel within and outside Nigeria. To assist the National Assembly is a sector of the civil service dedicated to these tasks alone
We will review and take appropriate action.