One thing common to both is THEY ARE THE WORLD'S BIGGEST LEGALISED TERRORISTS

both are based on lies and deceit. i do not see d democracy in der foreign policies

Sexslave01: I prefer theocracy!!

You prefer theocracy.....and then you have us click a link that leads to a website that destroys other people's marriages and leads hundreds of men and women down a road they may never come back from in one piece.

In a theocracy, people like you would not flourish.

I assume you are a Christian. Read Proverbs 7 and repent.

gift01: One thing common to both is THEY ARE THE WORLD'S BIGGEST LEGALISED TERRORISTS

They also spend millions in humanitarian aid, and in some ways try to support democratic forces.

And why attack the US and the UK? Try Russia (whose history involves invading other nations and killing far more Afghans than the Americans ever killed), China, even Iran and many other countries.

If you want to critique countries...at least accept that others are also up to no good.

ednut1: both are based on lies and deceit. i do not see d democracy in der foreign policies

Their democracies are not perfect....but I am sure you won't like the alternatives...China's one party system, or Iran's Ayatollah system.

good leaders is wat we are lacking!

What in God's name is "parliamental"??

And the mod had to move it to the fp without editing it exposing us all to the world as ignoramuses!!

Op please make that PARLIAMENTARY.

CFCfan: The American-style Presidential system of government is more suitable for multi-ethnic, and multi-racial countries such as Nigeria , South Africa, the US etc. This is because the concept of Federalism is usually embedded within their constitutions.
However, in the case of Nigeria, the FG is by far the most powerful tier.

On the other hand, the Parliamentary system is more suited to mono-ethnic, small (by population) nations. In this system, both the Executive and legislative branches are one and d same. The Head of State in a Parliamentary system is usually a monarch or a ceremonial President/Emperor.

So I would say that the Congressional/Presidential system is ultimately the best for Nigeria. If the basis of federalism is further improved, the states would have more powers than they current do. For instance, they (states) could have their own constitutions, police forces, set the salaries of their political office holders, and conduct elections for the office of Governor and House of Assembly.

the presidential system of government as we have seen in the pass 15 years have not worked for nigeria, it has not quelled tribalism, it has prooved to be more expensive, more divisive, more corruptive, etc.. The parliamentary system is better, the mistake we made in 1960 was allocate seats according to fusy population numbers. Create a nigerian parliament like the senate. Every region or state has a fixed number of seat and let the parties fight for votes accross regional and ethnic lines.

Blaqsmith: I will go for the American's Congress system of Government because it makes for equal representation and well passage of bills.

British's is more dictatorial in nature and the issue of collective responsibility is also a lapse.


I stand to be corrected.

correction. It makes for uunecessary deadlock and disgusting party politics. Since 2010, the democratic control senate has not passed a bill that the repubican control house has taken up. They've both park the bus and have taken deep extreamist sides. They can't pass budgets, immigration bills, they've shut down the government once, have even almost defaulted on the u.s debt. If you ask americans, they'll take an efficent single party government over a deadlock two party government.

Symphony007: I think the british parliamentary system is better! It makes for more accountability as party leaders get to debate themeselves regularly. It is more efficient as the ruling party governs without obstruction from the opposition. Elections are fought over ideology and performance of a party, not if you like who will be the prime minister because he can be changed by the party anytime.

Congress Is a cumbersome and slow governing system. There is also a tendency that no single party will control the presidency, senate and house of representatives, so it gives the opposition powers to obstruct the policies of the ruling party( this has been the hallmark of the obama presidency)... Elections are at times not fought over policies but which presidential candidate is more likable or has nicer hair. The president is not accountable to congress, only his cabinet ministers are. Governing is very slow as every bill must pass two houses of congress and it's harder when two parties control each house. There are many more.....

You spoke my mind, accountability is what I love about parliament. Imagine our president going to senate and having to explain for hours why certain issues are not resolved. Sometimes I feel sorry for uk prime minister where someone would tell him he isn't doing his job.

US has one head of state and he's the same as the head of government, while Britain has them separately the head of state is the monarch while the head of government is the Prime Minister (appointed by the queen) which is the leader of the party. Him and his ministers are collectively accountable to the monarch, when a minister messes up the whole cabinet is responsible.

A President can be impeached and a cabinet can be dissolved too - the Prime Minister can be thrown out with "vote of no confidence". When a President get impeached no minister follows him, but when a Prime Minister gets voted out (no confidence), he leaves with his ministers.

In my own layman view, any government that provide security and concerned about the social welfare of its citizenry is a good government. Any govt that doesn't do so, the citizens have the power to vote him out during the next election and/or maybe revolt against the government.

Unlike Authoritarian States, where government are kinda less-concerned about their citizens, maybe because they don't rely on the citizens to get to where they are..

So far, so good US and Britain & Canada rock.

CFCfan: The American-style Presidential system of government is more suitable for multi-ethnic, and multi-racial countries such as Nigeria , South Africa, the US etc. This is because the concept of Federalism is usually embedded within their constitutions.
However, in the case of Nigeria, the FG is by far the most powerful tier.
On the other hand, the Parliamentary system is more suited to mono-ethnic, small (by population) nations. In this system, both the Executive and legislative branches are one and d same. The Head of State in a Parliamentary system is usually a monarch or a ceremonial President/Emperor.
So I would say that the Congressional/Presidential system is ultimately the best for Nigeria. If the basis of federalism is further improved, the states would have more powers than they current do. For instance, they (states) could have their own constitutions, police forces, set the salaries of their political office holders, and conduct elections for the office of Governor and House of Assembly.

cfcfan I so much agree with you. The presidential system is ideal for this country but we really need true federalism. A need for a de-centralised power. Let the state control its resources and let the citizens police their tribes.

Well as for me I preffer the Amercan system of government for the fact that power isn't centralised on one person

Lucasbalo: You are 100 percent right. Nothing more to add.

Our forefathers could have easily taken on the archaic british system but they didn't.

The american system may not be the best it works for us.

danaiks: It is true however that the UK political system is seen to give the prime minister too much power due the fusion of powers. USA system has a separation of powers so therefore the judiciary the executive and the legislature are completely separate and in the UK some people are part of two. This is sometimes seen as too much power. USA seems to be better

You are not completely right. The VP who is in the executive branch is also the Senate president in the legislative branch.

bushdoc9919: Well, here it is briefly

In the British system....the people vote for their representatives, who take their seats in parliament, the equivalent of our national assembly.
Then said representatives from the Party which has the higher number of seats choose the Party Leader(who is also a member of Parliament) as the Prime Minister.(If the majority Party does not get above a certain threshold of seats...it may either form a minority government...Labour's 1976 govt, or a Coalition government....the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government).

Also, the British system is bi-camereal...two houses...the House of Commons which is (commonly)referred to as the Parliament or just plain Commons, and the House of Lords , which is made up of the hereditary Lords (or traditional chiefs, roughly speaking). Commons chooses the Prime Minister...who is then approved by HM the Queen.(in a formal ceremony known as kissing of hands). Lords used to be more powerful and could overrule the Commons, but reforms brought in in the 90's have reduced its powers.(one of Tony Blair's good ideas).

The Americans have Congress, which is bicameral...the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Representatives and Senators are chosen by direct election. The President of the US is chosen by a separate election. Unlike the UK...the President need not come from the majority party in Congress....and the majority party in the Senate may be different from the majority party in the House. (Like right now...the Democrats control the Senate...and the Republicans the House)

I have no preferences. Though in the Nigerian setup, the American system works better because the Parliamentary system unfortunately gets easily compromised by tribalism.The American system also forces the Opposition to compromise with the Ruling party or vice versa.

Please I need more tutorial. Never knew parliamentry system is 'bicameral'.

Symphony007: correction. It makes for uunecessary deadlock and disgusting party politics. Since 2010, the democratic control senate has not passed a bill that the repubican control house has taken up. They've both park the bus and have taken deep extreamist sides. They can't pass budgets, immigration bills, they've shut down the government once, have even almost defaulted on the u.s debt. If you ask americans, they'll take an efficent single party government over a deadlock two party government.

Thanks.

bushdoc9919: Well, here it is briefly

In the British system....the people vote for their representatives, who take their seats in parliament, the equivalent of our national assembly.
Then said representatives from the Party which has the higher number of seats choose the Party Leader(who is also a member of Parliament) as the Prime Minister.(If the majority Party does not get above a certain threshold of seats...it may either form a minority government...Labour's 1976 govt, or a Coalition government....the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government).

Also, the British system is bi-camereal...two houses...the House of Commons which is (commonly)referred to as the Parliament or just plain Commons, and the House of Lords , which is made up of the hereditary Lords (or traditional chiefs, roughly speaking). Commons chooses the Prime Minister...who is then approved by HM the Queen.(in a formal ceremony known as kissing of hands). Lords used to be more powerful and could overrule the Commons, but reforms brought in in the 90's have reduced its powers.(one of Tony Blair's good ideas).

The Americans have Congress, which is bicameral...the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Representatives and Senators are chosen by direct election. The President of the US is chosen by a separate election. Unlike the UK...the President need not come from the majority party in Congress....and the majority party in the Senate may be different from the majority party in the House. (Like right now...the Democrats control the Senate...and the Republicans the House)

I have no preferences. Though in the Nigerian setup, the American system works better because the Parliamentary system unfortunately gets easily compromised by tribalism.The American system also forces the Opposition to compromise with the Ruling party or vice versa.

I like this guy sha, your knowledge on this matter and your tactical approach is unmatched so far on this thread. Thumbs up bro.

THE MILITARY TYPE OF GOVT.IS BEST IT IS NEXT TO GOD'S STYLE OF GOVERNMENT

dictatorship is the best

sheffyUTD:

Please I need more tutorial. Never knew parliamentry system is 'bicameral'.

Bi cameral means 'Two houses''. In the UK...the system is bicameral...ie House of Commons,and House of Lords....which technically speaking work together to make laws and decide policy for the country.(ie the UK).Same with the US...House of Representatives and the Senate.

Unicameral means one house....and a good example is France's Assemblé Nationale.

shockwave91: dictatorship is the best

Depends. For rapid development...then dictatorships might work(eg Park Chung Hee's South Korea, and with a caveat, Stalin's USSR). Downside is the repression, and the fact that if the head is corrupt...the rest of the country goes down with him/her.(eg...Congo DR under Mobutu Sese Seko).

Boko Alert!!!

gift01: One thing common to both is THEY ARE THE WORLD'S BIGGEST LEGALISED TERRORISTS

bushdoc9919:

Depends. For rapid development...then dictatorships might work(eg Park Chung Hee's South Korea, and with a caveat, Stalin's USSR). Downside is the repression, and the fact that if the head is corrupt...the rest of the country goes down with him/her.(eg...Congo DR under Mobutu Sese Seko).

U noticed the only negative ones you mentioned were in africa??

Most peeps don't know that guys full name is "mobutu sese soko kuku ugbendu wazabanga"

Hmmm God dey

shockwave91:


U noticed the only negative ones you mentioned were in africa??

Most peeps don't know that guys full name is "mobutu sese soko kuku ugbendu wazabanga"

A lot of negative examples exist elsewhere....try Pinochet of Chile, and the Kim Dynasty of North Korea...especially Kim Jong Ill.

Park of South Korea is a ''positive example'' because he transformed South Korea from backwater dependency of the US in 1961 to industrial nation by 1979. Sadly most Afrcan dictators, even the ''good ones'' like Ghaddafi failed in that department.

...

@ bushdoc9919, the British parliemntary system has evovled past your post above. I honestly believe the parliamentary system with devolved powers to the six geo-political zones is best suited to govern Nigeria. It is leaner and more efficient in my opinion for a country the size of Nigeria.

If you really believe Nigeria has a population of 170M, you must also believe in Santa Claus

@dannypool, The topic of your thread is rather flawed (no offence meant). It should have been" THE BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY VS THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM" I will elaborate.In The British parlliamentary system, The Parliament (House of and Commons) forms the Government. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the majority seat in Government. If there is no party with the majority seat, a coalition is formed with other other political party or parties to form a Government. (the Nigerian 1st republic NPC and NCNC coalition) is an example. NOTE that The ministers and Cabinet members are chosen from the PARLIAMENT. usually from the ruling party. The ministers are ELECTED POLITICIANS. They operate on the principle of COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY. The BRITISH PARLIAMENT WIELDS BOTH LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POWERS AND THEY ARE USUALLY THE COURT OF LAST RESORT.