A RETURN TO PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM?

The problem is not with the system, but the operators, argues Sonny Iroche
     



Nigeria gained independence from British colonial rule in 1960, marking the beginning of a complex journey towards establishing a stable and effective system of governance. Over the decades, the country has experienced various political systems, transitions, and challenges that have shaped its political landscape. In light of the country’s over six decades of independence, it is important to explore the evolution of political systems in Nigeria since independence, highlighting key developments, transitions, and their impact on governance and the people of Nigeria.

As the country has for sometime been increasingly facing severe economic challenges, it is necessary to discuss a comprehensive overview of Nigeria’s political development since achieving independence in 1960, which may or may not be the raison d’être of our economic quagmire. By tracing the evolution of political systems, including the transition from colonial rule to independence, the emergence of democratic governance, military interventions, and the adoption of different systems of government, a nuanced understanding of Nigeria’s political history will be crucial in determining how we arrived at this sorry economic state. My brief analysis will delve into the challenges, achievements, and implications of these political transitions for governance and socio-economic development in the country.

Evolution of Political Systems in Nigeria Since Independence, can be categorized into the interphases between civilian republics and military interventions.

The years between the attainment of Independence in 1960, and Republic in 1963-1960, is known as the First Republic; and the Parliamentary System (1960-1966).
 Nigeria adopted a parliamentary system of government at independence, with a ceremonial president, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe and a prime minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, as the head of government.
 The First Republic (1963-1966), saw the emergence of regionalism, ethno-political tensions, and inter-party struggles that culminated in the military coup of 1966.

Secondly, the first military incursion into political leadership and authoritarianism, commenced with General JTU Aguiyi-Ironsi, with four regional Military governors and ended with General Olusegun Obasanjo (1966-1979).
Following a series of coups and counter-coups, Nigeria experienced a period of military rule characterized by authoritarianism, centralization of power, and suppression of dissent. The civil war (1967-1970) further exacerbated ethnic divisions and economic challenges, shaping the trajectory of governance in the country.

Thirdly, after the Murtala Mohammed/ Olusegun Obasanjo transition programme, Nigeria returned to Civilian Rule and the birth of the Second Republic (1979-1983): upon the election of President Shehu Shagari. Nigeria transitioned back to civilian rule in 1979, adopting a presidential system of government under the Second Republic.
However, political instability, corruption, and economic crises marred the Second Republic, leading to another military intervention in 1983, masterminded by Major-General Muhammadu Buhari and other coupists.

Fourthly, military dictatorship and transition to democracy(1983-1999): The period of military dictatorship under leaders such as General Ibrahim Babangida and General Sani Abacha was marked by human rights abuses, political repression, and economic mismanagement.
 The death of Abacha in 1998 paved the way, for a brief government under General Abdulsalam Abubakar, who conducted an election for a return to civilian rule. This threw up the now retired army General,  Olusegun Obasanjo, culminating in the Fourth Republic and the adoption of the current presidential system of government in 1999 to date.

The history of Nigeria’s political development since independence reflects a complex interplay of democratic aspirations, military interventions, socio-economic challenges, and ethno-political dynamics. The evolution of political systems in Nigeria has been shaped by a legacy of colonialism, regionalism, corruption, and power struggles that have influenced governance and nation-building efforts. As Nigeria continues its journey towards democratic consolidation and sustainable development, it is essential to learn from past experiences, address historical injustices, promote inclusivity, diversity and strengthen democratic institutions to build a more resilient and prosperous future for all Nigerians.

Since, historically the political landscape of Nigeria has been characterized by a tumultuous history of governance, with both the presidential and parliamentary systems being implemented at various points in time. There have been calls from a number of statesmen, academics and commentators who advocate a return to the Parliamentary system of government; while some others call for a return to true federalism, reminiscing the 1960 federal structure of the country. As a concerned citizen, I have personally advocated a return to the Parliamentary system, strictly from the point of view of cost of governance.


Let me make it clear, that there isn’t any political system of government that is either infallible, imperfect or perfect. It all depends on the political actors, leadership and citizens’ advocacy. The presidential or parliamentary systems have their peculiar pros and cons and different characteristics. And have worked in those climes, where democracy has matured. What really makes any of these systems work, depends largely on the voter’s education of the governed and the attitude of the political class about power grab, corruption, manipulation of the system and a total disregard for the rule of law. Like Paul the Apostle says: ‘The letter without the spirit kills’. The spirit of our political leaders, must be bigger than the letter.
It is not the system that is responsible for the sorry state of our country, and many African countries today. But our problem as a country hinges solely on the failure of leadership, corruption and total lack of accountability to the people of Nigeria, who in stricto sensus, ought to be at the heart of governance and  leadership.

 The presidential system in Nigeria features a clear separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, with the president serving as the head of state and government. In contrast, the parliamentary system integrates the executive and legislative branches, with the prime minister being drawn from the parliament and accountable to its members.
 In the presidential system, the president is directly elected by the people and holds significant executive powers, which could lead to a concentration of authority and limited accountability.
The parliamentary system emphasizes collective responsibility, with the prime minister and cabinet being subject to regular questioning and oversight by the parliament, enhancing accountability to elected representatives.
 The presidential system allows for a more centralized decision-making process, as the president has the authority to make key policy decisions without direct parliamentary approval. In the parliamentary system, decisions are made through consensus-building and coalition politics, requiring cooperation among multiple parties to pass legislation and implement policies.


The presidential system can provide stability through fixed terms for the president and clear lines of authority, but it may also lead to gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. The parliamentary system offers flexibility in forming governments and passing legislation, but it can be prone to frequent changes in leadership and coalition instability.

In conclusion, both the presidential and parliamentary systems of government have their merits and drawbacks when applied to the Nigerian context. While the presidential system may offer stability and clear lines of authority, the parliamentary system emphasizes accountability, consensus-building, and closer representation of the people through elected representatives. Ultimately, the success of either system in Nigeria, or in any other country, depends on the commitment of leaders to uphold democratic principles, foster good governance, and address the challenges facing the country.

In light of the current political climate in Nigeria, a careful consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of both systems is essential to determine the most suitable framework for effective governance and sustainable development in the country. Only through informed debate and critical analysis can Nigeria progress towards a system of government that truly serves the interests of its people and upholds the principles of democracy.

Iroche is a Financial and Infrastructure Consultant