One Six-Year Rotational Presidential Term: Solution to Nigeria’s Problems?
In search of an ideal, feasible and rancour free system of government, Nigeria has tried and experimented with various forms of government, including Parliamentary and Presidential systems, both of which rightfully or wrongfully, some believe may not have been completely successful, and may need some tweaking into our own homegrown version. To this end, the National Assembly is presently engaged in considering a Bill that will constitutionally entrench a six-year single term for the nation’s Presidency, to be rotated amongst the country’s major regions, so that all can have a bite of the cherry of governance at the highest level. Would this assuage the political mistrust, fears and suspicions over the present four-year Presidential system in which there’s no constitutional provision for rotation among the regions? In this Discourse, George Ogunatde, SAN; Adewale Adesokan, SAN; Gboyega Okunniga and Dr Sam Amadi do an in-depth examination of the issue
‘No’, to a Single Six-Year Regional Rotational Presidency
George Oguntade, SAN
Lawmakers’ Proposal
I read with great interest, the recent proposal by 35 oppositional lawmakers proposing a Bill for a six-year single term Presidency, rotated amongst the geopolitical zones of the country. And, I am definitely not in favour of the Bill, as I believe it will do more harm than good in the long run.
The Cons
Firstly, a six-year term is way too long. The consequence of such arrangement is that a President who is not performing to the satisfaction of the people, will remain foisted on them for a significantly longer period than currently obtains. Four years seems about the right term, and this is what obtains in many democracies, no doubt based on experience.
A single six-year term, is also likely to fuel and entrench unbridled corruption. A President, knowing he has a single term for such a long period will believe he has no need to account for his stewardship, and will simply enrich himself as much as possible. There will be no guardrail to act as a check against potential avarice, and this will ultimately harm the country.
Rotational Presidency amongst the six geopolitical zones goes against democratic tenets, and will expose us to the risk of having a totally unsuitable person assuming office simply because he is the “best” his region can offer. A country as big and diverse as Nigeria, cannot be run on such primordial basis.
Suggestions
Rather, we should be looking to improve the current two term four-year Presidency, rotated by convention between the North and the South. We should strive to elect the right persons who have well articulated ideas, to move the country forward rather. It is also crucial to reduce the prohibitive cost of governance, which I understand is one of the considerations that informed the recent proposal by the 35 lawmakers. This can be achieved without a six-year single term Presidency. All that is required is selfless, dedicated and committed leadership.
George Oguntade, SAN, Lagos
Opposition to a Single Six-Year Rotational Presidency
Adewale Adesokan, SAN
Reasons for Opposition
The first reason I am opposed to it, is because it will enthrone mediocrity, it will enthrone corruption, it will enthrone ethnicity, and it will enthrone bad governance.
It will enthrone ethnicity, because every region whose turn it is to produce the President will see it as their turn to take their share of national cake because they would have waited; they will assume it is their own turn to appoint their own people regardless of the merits. They will see it as a time to have their own piece of the national cake, and so, there will be even greater corruption. So, for that reason, it is not right.
It will also not be good for performance, because if a President cannot look forward to a second term, he does not have to perform well during a single term that he would have. In fact, that will only reinforce the fact that his six-year term is for him and his region, to have their own bite at the cherry. And so, all he wants to do is to take care of his region, and bad governance because merit is sacrificed.
Nigeria has a population of over 220 million people. We would now confine our choices, to a section of the country. That means we would not necessarily be fielding our best candidate, as the best candidate may or may not be from that region. That’s another reason.
The other reason is that, it is not a popular idea. You won’t find it popular in other countries, apart from Switzerland where they have a Collegiate Presidency. You don’t have a rotational Presidency elsewhere except rotational government, which had been practiced twice by Israel, once by, Ireland, and very few others. The others who have proposed it, have not actually put it into place.
What is important is that we should find ways to modify our electoral system, so that elections can be free and fair. That should be our objective, when we are talking about regional Presidency and single term. Measures to ensure that our elections are free and fair, and that they reflect the wishes of a greater majority of Nigerians.
The other reason is that the very purpose for which the idea of having a rotational Presidency on a regional basis, the various ideas it is supposed to serve, is what our Federal Character Commission is serving. The principle of federal character can be found in the Constitution, and has been practiced over the years. In fact, we have a Federal Character Commission as an agency. If there’s anything wrong with the way the principle is being practiced, let us fine-tune it.
When we say rotational Presidency, it does not cure marginalisation. It only regionalises marginalisation. Instead of marginalisation being at the centre, it now brings marginalisation to the regions. Every region has a multi-ethnic composition. Even the smallest of all the regions, has a multi-ethnic composition. Different ethnic groups and constituents of every region have attained different levels of prominence in education, in the civil service, in science and technology, and even in business. Some are more prominent in national life than others. When you get to regions, you find a situation in which a section of the region will now be lording it over the other parts of the region. In other words, what we are running away from the centre, what we are trying to cure at the centre, or what you thought you had cured at the centre by making sure that powers go to the different regions, will now rear its head at the regions, resulting in a situation in which constituent parts of regions are feeling marginalised, because one or two of parts of the regions are the ones dominating the nomination of the candidates for Presidency. Check all the regions. That’s predominantly what the experience has been. And so, it does not solve the problem. It only brings it nearer home from the centre.
Conclusion
If anything is to be done to the term of the Presidency, it should be retained as it is, that is, a four-year term, twice. If it is to be changed, it should be changed to two five-year terms. So that, in all, a performing President will have up to 10 years to impact the lives of Nigerians. He will have sufficient time to impact the lives of Nigerians.
Perhaps, instead of 25% of votes in two-thirds of all States of the Federation, may be it should be moved to 35%, so long as we are practicing the Presidential system, so that the President should be seen to be indeed, widely accepted.
Adewale Adesokan, SAN, Lagos
The Case for Single Six-year Presidential and Governorship Term
Gboyega Okunniga
A four-year term is too long for a President who is not a true spokesman of the people, who is imposed upon and does not lead. It is too short a term for a President who is doing, or attempting, a great work of reform, and who has not had time to finish it. To change the term to six years would be to increase the likelihood of its being too long, without any assurance that it would, in happy cases, be long enough”– Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of USA
Democracy is an ever-evolving experiment, therefore, when it comes to the issue of term limits, there are no hard answers right or wrong. I struggle to see how an individual’s office term limit, or lack thereof, contributes to a “more democratic” outcome, or an outcome that voters would be more approving of. The proposed major alterations to the 1999 Constitution, including the introduction of a single six-year term for the President and Governors has been around for a long time. However, the prospects for adoption of the single six-year term appears to have gained some appreciable traction in this current dispensation, in light of the current administration’s favourable disposition to constitutional and political reforms. Therefore, its prospects for adoption cannot be dismissed out of hand, despite the longstanding opposition of some political class who have consistently branded it as a terrible idea for a number of reasons, among them, that it is at war with the basic tenet and philosophy of democracy. For all these reasons, a careful analysis of the pros and cons of the six-year single term remains very much in order. This article offers such an analysis, and a new slant on a familiar old debate. It is not intended to be a polemic in support of either. Having carried out a thorough review of the argument for and against the proposition, I am of the conviction that neither side has clearly stated its strongest argument. For example, the reason to be for the single six-year term is not because politics undermines the Presidency, or because Presidents need more time, but, because the mass public, now possessed of the power to decide whether a President returns to office, has recently seemed unpredictable and impulsive in its use of this power. Conversely, the reason to be against this reform is not solely because it is undemocratic, but, because there is no viable alternative to re-electability. Nonetheless, there is widespread support for a single term limit. According to a recent Atmos Green Research poll carried out amongst Nigerians in six countries including Nigeria, 78% of Nigerians voted in favour of a single, six-year Presidential and Governorship term. Among most polls, support for the single term was bipartisan. Moreso, Nigeria would not be alone in limiting its President or Governors to a single term (for example, Mexico, has a six-year term and South Korea, a five-year term).
Arguments For and Against
It is safe to assume that if something isn’t broken, nobody would want to fix it. Precisely what, then, do proponents perceive the problem(s) to be, and how would a single six-year Presidential term work to solve them? I count four distinct arguments in favour.
The Politics is Bad Argument. The basic argument for the single term, is that the quest for re-election is at the heart of our problems. The desire for re-election, it is claimed, drives Presidents and Governors to do things they would not otherwise do, like turning the executive branch into a permanent campaign headquarters. It leads them to make easy promises, and to postpone hard decisions. A single six-year term would liberate Presidents from the pressures and temptations of politics. Instead of worrying about re-election, they would be free to do only what was best for the country. Another harmful consequence in this view, is that instead of doing what is courageous or correct, from a policy standpoint, a President is obliged to do what is popular, in order to protect his political prospects, and can even be motivated to do something illegal and foolish.
On the other hand, the opponents of the single term will argue that politics is good. The argument that a President free from re-election worries would do what is right rather than what is merely popular, contains an implicit and highly debatable assumption which does not bear up under scrutiny. The assumption that what is popular is invariably at odds with what is right, is thereby exposed for what it is: historically inaccurate and tinged with anti-democratic elitism. It is not at all clear that removing electoral accountability, would produce better Presidential decisions, all or even most of the time.
The Needless Burden Argument. This argument assumes that the quest for re-election compels the President to devote time, energy and talents to political campaign tasks. A President pursuing re-election faces a host of demands that range from attending the needs of political office-holders, office-seekers, financial backers and all the rest, to riding hard on the day-to-day developments within the pedestrian partisan arena. President Lyndon Johnson voiced the same concern in his memoirs, The Vantage Point. The growing burdens of office exact an enormous physical toll on the man himself, and place incredible demands on his time under these circumstances. The old belief that a President can carry out the responsibilities of the office, and, at the same time, undergo the rigours of campaigning is, in my opinion, no longer valid. It can, therefore, be argued that if the President is not saddled with the burden of re-election, his energies can be used more effectively.
On the other hand, the opponents have argued that it is worth remembering one important fact: a President can do as much or as little as he wants to about anything. To this end, they contend that the Needless burden argument, is tantamount to saying that the only solution to a broken arm is amputation. In this context, the six-year single-term Presidency might appear to be an overkill.
The Bureaucracy Argument. Put simply, the argument is that, Presidents do not presently have enough time to allow their policies a fair chance to work. A President now spends his first three years in office, just establishing control over the bureaucracy. The current four-year term is actually too short, to achieve any of the major changes and improvements that a President should accomplish. For example Federal and State Government budgets are prepared in advance, therefore, in its first year, an administration operates on the budget of its predecessor. In its second year, it operates on the budget which reflects its early aspirations. Only the budgets for the third and fourth years are prepared on the basis of solid experience. Four years is, therefore, not enough time to test any President or Governor’s leadership, or the merits of their policies.
However, it is the argument of the opponents that the contention that the President needs more time in order to put his measures into effect (the bureaucracy argument above), amounts to an effort to capture through a reorganisation what now must be earned at the polls. The substance of the argument itself? That it requires years to get control of the budget, and the bureaucracy was blunted by the quick strike of the Olusegun Obasanjo’s Administration, which brought both to heel within the initial year in office. An effective Presidential strategy, it seems, is worth two or more years of lost time.
The Fickle Support Argument. The strongest argument in support of the single six-year term, is what is called the fickle support position. It is also the most difficult to dispute, because there are good reasons to support it. The argument emerges from the conclusion that public support is too fickle and unreliable a commodity, to serve as the engine and the drive for the Presidential system. Although voters would still choose the President, but, they would no longer have the opportunity to evaluate him formally at the polls, where it counts. A President or Governor decoupled from public opinion, would cast off a dependency which inhibits more than it helps. Such a President would be free to draw his strength from other sources, and to decide for himself what is right.
Conclusion
Having presented the opposition’s retort to the arguments in support, and saving our return to the much stronger fickle support argument for last, however, it is crucial for the supporters of the reform not to rule out some unintended consequences of the six- year single-term. First, there is the possibility that the six-year single-term Presidency, would unintentionally precipitate a decline in the legitimacy accorded to the government by the governed. This possibility stems from the fact that the reform covertly (and perhaps, unintentionally) attacks both the theory and the practice of democracy, the moral and ethical basis for the right to wield power in our system. Briefly, the theory of democracy holds that for a system to be democratic, leaders must be subject to a significant amount of control by followers. The major mechanism by which such control is exerted, is the electoral process. Citizens control leaders in part by choosing them in the first place, a practice which the proposed reform leaves undisturbed. But, a more direct and significant type of control, and one which this reform would eliminate, is the control exercised by the citizens when the President who is seeking re-election is asked to account for his actions and evaluated retrospectively on his record of performance.
To conclude, I submit that the strength of the reformer’s case lies in the fickle support argument, because the real problem is not burdens, budgets, credibility or the evils of politics. The real problem is the existence of evidence like that noted above, which lends credence to the implicit conviction of experts that the citizenry has not used its electoral power wisely enough to deserve it. This is a clear implication of the belief that what is popular will rarely, if ever, be equivalent to what is right, insofar as Presidential action is concerned. It is at least plausible to take such facts as widespread public apathy toward politics, low voter turnout, and unrealistic expectations for Presidential performance, as reasons to doubt the political judgement of the electorate. Perhaps, the public cannot be relied upon to exercise the discipline to control momentary passions, to see past gimmickry and flimflammery, or to learn enough of the issues to wield its constitutional power responsibly. Thus, we return to the age-old debate between those who do, and those who do not place greater faith in the rough wisdom of ordinary people than in experts or institutions. Proponents of a single six-year term clearly do not, and they have significant evidence to support their position. If they ever do carry the day, this will probably be why.
Thomas Jefferson could have been responding to the fickle support argument when he penned the following retort: “I know of no safe depository for the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves. And, if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion”.
Gboyega Okunniga, International Attorney and UK Solicitor, Coventry, UK
Is it Time to Go Back to Regions and Single Term?
Dr Sam Amadi
Introduction
There is some significant clamour, for a return to regional structure of governance for Nigeria. The recent wave of the clamour originates with a strange memo circulating on social media, ostensibly prepared by an illustrious group that wants to force a constitutional change on the structure of the Federation. It is being alleged that the memo has the buy-in of the Presidency, and is walking its way to the National Assembly where it would be passed into law. But, both the Presidency and the National Assembly have denied any involvement with such a Bill. So, what’s up?
History of Single Tenure Bill
In addition, there is a Bill pending before the National for a single term of six years for the President of Nigeria. This Bill seeks to amend the tenure of the President under the Constitution, such that a Nigerian President will stand election for the office only once and serve a term of six years. It is important to note that, this is not the first time a single tenure for the President has been proposed for constitutional reform. It started with General Abacha, when members of his aborted constitutional reform recommended a single tenure and multiple Vice Presidents for the country. That proposal was part of a well-reasoned scheme of power sharing, which aimed at ensuring that all parts of Nigeria have a significant sense of inclusion in political power. Abacha’s wise men wanted political power to rotate between the geopolitical zones. So, a single tenure ensures that all the zones get to hold Presidential power in a short period of time. Unfortunately, the Justice Nike Tobi Committee that reviewed Abacha’s constitutional proposal after the death of the strongman, rejected that constitutional proposal.
The idea of a single tenure for the President resurrected during Obasanjo’s Presidency, when he established a constitutional review committee. Suddenly, a draft Bill emerged, recommending a single tenure of six years for the President. That draft Bill caused so much bad blood amongst the conferees, and destroyed the credibility of the Conference. Expectedly, nothing came out of the Conference. Now, the Bill is back, suggesting either strong logic or a powerful constituency behind it, or both.
We largely borrowed our Presidential system of government, from the United States. There, the President is electable for two tenures of four years each, and no more. The limitation of tenure was introduced later in the constitutional evolution of that country. Originally, there was no tenure limitation. George Washington was asked to continue for life, but he refused and backed down. FDR held power, for three tenures of four years. The US Constitution did not provide for a limited tenure until 1951 when the twenty-second amendment was passed by Congress. It was part of the changes to the Executive Branch, proposed to Congress by the Hoover Commission appointed by President Truman. Before then, a person could run for President for indefinite terms. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 69, notably stated that “That Magistrate is to be elected for four years; and is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence”. But, that changed.
Nigeria followed the change in its own Constitution. Prof Nwabueze justified the choice of the President in the 1979 Constitution, the forebear of the 1999 Constitution, as the desire for a Chief Executive who could energetically drive economic and social development, unlike the Prime Minister under parliamentary system.
Advantages and Disadvantages of One Six-Year Tenure
Considering the arguments for a Chief Executive for economic and social transformation as Nigeria’s Head of State, what is the advantage and disadvantage of limiting the office of the President to one single term of six years? One possible disadvantage, could be that a single tenure may be too short for a Presidential agenda. But, many argue that six years is enough for the President to envision and implement a development agenda. After the end of tenure, his political party can continue the agenda. The major mischief which the promoters of the proposal seek to avert, is tendency of incumbent Presidents to manipulate the electoral system to ensure they win election. It is argued that if we limit the term to a single tenure, it reduces the incentive for electoral manipulation. Furthermore, it enables the President to hit the road running and reduces inclination to excess politicking while in office, because there is no second term to bargain. Additionally, a single term Presidency, coupled with constitutionally mandated rotation of office, will help to create a sense of inclusion and reduce ethnic and religious warfare over Presidential power.
These arguments are strong, and outweigh the concern that a six-year single tenure might be short for a President to achieve his or her strategic vision. The mischief of electoral manipulation by an incumbent President is a more dangerous threat to democracy and development in Nigeria, than a prospect of a President not having enough time to achieve his agenda by virtue of a single six-year tenure. Many people will accept such small downside, for the massive upside of ending the spectre of electoral manipulation and destructive competition for political power.
Clamour for Regions
Let’s consider the clamour for regions. Well, one thing is sure, this memo has some institutional traction even if it has no official ownership for the moment. Since 2014, when President Goodluck Jonathan’s Constitutional Conference ended with recommendations to restructure the country, there has been some concern about the State structure and the Federal-State relationship in Nigeria. The anomaly of Federal-State relationship is not helped by the near bankruptcy of many of the States. These States cannot pay salaries, and are neck-deep in debt. The high multidimensional poverty index in Nigeria is a bad testimony to the failure of leadership in the States, since the policies and administrative actions needed to reverse such gross poverty lie largely with subnational authorities. The lack of performance of State Governments reinforces the belief that the Federal-State structure cannot work in Nigeria.
It is interesting that the campaign for a return to regions, goes side by side with campaign for a return to Parliamentary system of government. It is like the disastrous economic performance of the Government at the centre since 2015, has aggravated the nostalgia for the systems of the past. President Tinubu’s astounding leadership failure since his inauguration as President on May 29, 2023, has added fire to the fuel. We are now drenched in anxiety, and we want to make a quick dash to safety, in the form of restructuring. But, the problem is, there is no easy escape from a dysfunctional system.
The Constitutional Incubus
The real problem is the Constitution. Nigeria’s constitutional articulation of Federalism, is faulty. Usually a Federation is a relationship of two centres – Federal and State, as in the United States; Federal and Regions, as in Canada; or Federal and Cantons or Territories, as in Switzerland. Nigeria’s Federal system departs from this settled logic by constructing a monstrous Federation of Federal, State and Local Government, three centres instead of two. This incoherence breeds administrative failures. For example, the total castration of the local government system in Nigeria by State Governors, elicits the call for the Federal Government to intervene to straighten accountability in the management of the local government councils. As well-meaning and even inevitable as this call may seem, it is manifestly unconstitutional. By the incoherent provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal Government has no authority to direct the financial management of the local government councils. Similarly, by the same Constitution, in its provisions on the democratic nature of local government councils, any local government council being annexed politically by the State Government to the extent that its Chief Executive is not democratically elected, is no longer a local government council under the Constitution, and should not receive constitutionally mandated financial allocations. This is incoherence, big time.
The memo on the return to region, maps regions on top of existing States. Since the collapse of the First Republic that had the parliamentary system with regions as federating entities, Nigeria has entrenched a federation of Federal and State governments. These States are recognised by the Constitution as sovereigns with executive, legislative and judicial powers. How then can they co-exist as co-sovereigns with the Federal, within a regional structure? The constitutional incubus is such that even if we try a constitutional amendment it will be defeated at the State Assemblies, where Governors and legislators would be unwilling to lose their power. There is no conceptual way to have States co-exist with regions and the centre, in a coherent and workable Federal system. This is illusory.
One or two options are available for constitutional reformers. They may choose to have a new Federal system of Federal and States, where the bulk of powers exercised by the Federal Government is transferred to the State, and the Constitution mandates a significant degree of economic and political cooperation between States within a geopolitical zone, however, delineated. This will be the equivalent of an economic bloc with some constitutional authorisation and provision, but never a level of government with legislative authority.
The other option is to scramble the constitutional framework and create a new federal system of Federal and Regions. This has a lot of transaction costs that the visible and invisible promoters of regional system cannot afford at this period. Such proposal may not pass through the political gridlock and legislative supermajority required, because of anticipated opposition from some sections of the country.
It is not the Constitution, Stupid
But, wait a minute. Why are we in a hurry to revert to regional system of government? What is the argument for such reversal? The argument seems to be that Nigeria’s problems are caused by its State structure. Once we revert to regions, we will solve them. Of course, there is a problem with the manner the States were created. The lack of financial viability, is a problem. Their size is also a problem, because scale is important for economic growth. So, in the First Republic when we had the three regions, we recorded greater economic growth such that one of the regions, Eastern Nigeria, was reported as the fastest growing economy in the world. So, there is a good argument about the size and viability of the present State structure.
But, beyond that, Nigeria’s embarrassing economic and political failures are more a result of the poor leadership that has assailed it. Arguably, leadership failure more than State structure, may be the elephant in the room that needs to be shot dead. Institutions matter, and the design of institutions is a critical determinant of economic performance. For example, there are credible econometric studies that show that parliamentary system outperforms presidential system in GDP growth, and in measures of social stability. Its mechanism of check and balance is more effective, and it’s more responsiveness to social concerns, and therefore, all things being equal, more democratic. Similarly, the regional system with the autonomy it grants and the scale its presents for infrastructural development and markets, offer a better deal for development.
But, a big but, whether a reversion to regions in Nigeria will work wonders, actually depends on how we manage the other constitutional and institutional incoherences and contradictions that misdirect our politics. It also depends on the incentives that political actors will face, to compel them to exercise power in ways that achieve the strategic objectives of the constitutional design. Just as Daren Acemoglu and James Robertson put it in Why Nations Fail, without leadership that will not turn those institutions into exploitative institutions, the nostalgia for regions may end up just that. Whether reverting to regions, even if constitutionally feasible, will solve the problem of threatening State failure, depends on the complex interactions of institutions, policies and personnel. Nigeria’s problem is not mainly its State structure. The solution is not mostly changing to regions. The problem is more complex; the multiple interactions of institutions, policies and leadership.
Dr Sam Amadi
