₦airaland Forum

Some political stakeholders and commentators have emphatically backed calls for Nigeria to ditch the presidential system of government and return to the parliamentary system.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEQAdrko2aI

Whatever system of governance Nigeria adopts is bound to fail if not done right.

And parliamentarianism, being far more complex than presidentialism is much easier to get wrong.

Might watch the video if I find the time.

Watched it. Glad someone asked us to consider other forms of governance too.

Any one want China's one party rule?

I was torn about this for a while because of how cheap I thought a parliamentary system was. In that system, all they have is a house of rep (known in the UK as the House of Commons) but no Senate (there House of Lords is mostly ceremonial and doesn't really have power) and the Prime Minister (their President) is also a member of the House of the Rep (the House of Commons) and not someone elected by the people (in this system, you dont vote for the prime minister, you vote for the party and the party that wins the most seats tends to pick the prime minister). Its not really that much separate office like you have with the Presidential system as also the cabinet members (the ministers) are also members of the party so overall there system is cheaper as opposed to ours where we have to pay a Senate and the President and his ministers who are employees of the President and not fellow members of Parliament.
But having thought of it, I strongly believe in a Presidential system of democracy.
First of all, I believe in a Senate and I believe in it as a calming influence on the House which is usually too reactionary because of close it is to the people. I like to always compare the Senate and the House to the mother and the father in the home. The mother usually stays with the kids and is usually closer to them than the father and tends to give the kids the things they want. That's the same with the legislature. The House acts like Mommy who gives the kids everything. The Senate acts like Daddy: that tends to be detached and tends to take a more adults view in decision making. Afterall, there is a reason they say in America that the Senate is where bills go to die because only a fraction of bills from the House (that is, passed by the House) tend to make it through the Senate.
In a parliamentary democracy, you don't get seperation of Powers like you do with a Presidential democracy where power is split between the 3 bodies: The presidency, the legislature (the House and the Senate) and the Supreme Court. All three branches are as equally powerful as the other and are meant to check each others power.
In a parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister is simply part of Parliament (their legislature) and so is beholden to what they want him to do. He can't veto a bill (refuse to sign or approve) he doesn't like or they will get rid of him so the separation of powers is only between 2 bodies in that system as opposed to the Presidential system.
In the Presidential system, all three branches of govt: the executive (the President), the legislature (the House and Senate) and the Judiciary (the Supreme Court) have to agree for a bill to become law. How does that work? For example, to pass a bill in a Presidential system of govt, a bill has to pass the house by majority vote before it goes to the Senate. If it gets a majority vote there, then it goes to the Presidents desk for signing. If the President doesn't like the bill, he can refuse to sign it (a veto) and the bill will fail to become law or he can sign it and it becomes law.
Now if the bill violates the constitution, the Supreme Court can strike it down and claim it's illegality. This is where the Supreme Court comes in: to check the other two branches of govt.
Seun, lalasticlala

Lifestylecom:
Some political stakeholders and commentators have emphatically backed calls for Nigeria to ditch the presidential system of government and return to the parliamentary system.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEQAdrko2aI

The same parliamentary system lead to the first coup because of distrust among each regions.

The best is to restructure the country.

Thiefobi1:
The same parliamentary system lead to the first coup because of distrust among each regions.

The best is to restructure the country.

And the Presidential system led to several more coups and even bigger distrust. The one thing about parliamentary system over Presidential system is that places power in the hands of parliament, rather than the President

Nigeria should not be practicing a system where the President is commander in chief, head of government and head of State, three huge powers in one

In the parliamentary system, the President is commander in chief, the Prime Minister is head of government, and the head of parliament is head of state

PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM IS MUCH BETTER IF PRACTICED RIGHTLY.
ADOPT FAPRES AND CTC TRFG

EMPLOY KPMG TO DO IT FOR YOU.

davidif:
I was torn about this for a while because of how cheap I thought a parliamentary system was. In that system, all they have is a house of rep (known in the UK as the House of Commons) but no Senate (there House of Lords is mostly ceremonial and doesn't really have power) and the Prime Minister (their President) is also a member of the House of the Rep (the House of Commons) and not someone elected by the people. Its not really that much separate office like you have with the Presidential system as also the cabinet members (the ministers) are also members of the party so overall there system is cheaper as opposed to ours where we have to pay a Senate and the President and his ministers who are employees of the President and not fellow members of Parliament.
But having thought of it, I strongly believe in a Presidential system of democracy.
First of all, I believe in a Senate and I believe in it as a calming influence on the House which is usually too reactionary because of close it is to the people. I like to always compare the Senate and the House to the mother and the father in the home. The mother usually stays with the kids and is usually closer to them than the father and tends to give the kids the things they want. That's the same with the legislature. The House acts like Mommy who gives the kids everything. The Senate acts like Daddy: that tends to be detached and tends to take a more adults view in decision making. Afterall, there is a reason they say in America that the Senate is where bills go to die because only a fraction of bills from the House (that is, passed by the House) tend to make it through the Senate.
In a parliamentary democracy, you don't get seperation of Powers like you do with a Presidential democracy where power is split between the 3 bodies: The presidency, the legislature (the House and the Senate) and the Supreme Court. All three branches are as equally powerful as the other and are meant to check each others power.
In a parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister is simply part of Parliament (their legislature) and so is beholden to what they want him to do. He can't veto a bill (refuse to sign or approve) he doesn't like or they will get rid of him so the separation of powers is only between 2 bodies in that system as opposed to the Presidential system.
In the Presidential system, all three branches of govt: the executive (the President), the legislature (the House and Senate) and the Judiciary (the Supreme Court) have to agree for a bill to become law. How does that work? For example, to pass a bill in a Presidential system of govt, a bill has to pass the house by majority vote before it goes to the Senate. If it gets a majority vote there, then it goes to the Presidents desk for signing. If the President doesn't like the bill, he can refuse to sign it (a veto) and the bill will fail to become law or he can sign it and it becomes law.
Now if the bill violates the constitution, the Supreme Court can strike it down and claim it's illegality. This is where the Supreme Court comes in: to check the other two branches of govt.
Seun, lalasticlala

Both the daddy and mommy have failed Nigeria in all ramifications..

Regionalism is the only key!

Thiefobi1:
The same parliamentary system lead to the first coup because of distrust among each regions.

The best is to restructure the country.

Nope..

The first coup happened cuz of envy, greed for power. There was nothing like distrust among regions. Every region dey do hin thing hin own way..

People with a barren region got envious and wanted power to control Nigeria. It was why they didn’t only just kill the northern and western premier leader, they abolished our regionalism..

budaatum:
Whatever system of governance Nigeria adopts is bound to fail if not done right.

And parliamentarianism, being far more complex than presidentialism is much easier to get wrong.

Might watch the video if I find the time.

There is absolutely no way parliamentary system would produce a tinubu or Buhari... It's impossible

Hmm

Thiefobi1:
The same parliamentary system lead to the first coup because of distrust among each regions.

The best is to restructure the country.

Subject to debate though

mrvitalis:
There is absolutely no way parliamentary system would produce a tinubu or Buhari... It's impossible

Lifestylecom:
Subject to debate though

It's impossible, parliamentary system allows opposition to question you weekly

There would he no written speech

There is a reason prime ministers are relatively younger than Presidents

Hmmm

mrvitalis:
It's impossible, parliamentary system allows opposition to question you weekly

There would he no written speech

There is a reason prime ministers are relatively younger than Presidents

mrvitalis:
There is absolutely no way parliamentary system would produce a tinubu or Buhari... It's impossible

You are right on that one. At least even if it produced Buhari, he won't have lasted for 8 years.

PulaPower:
Nope..

The first coup happened cuz of envy, greed for power. There was nothing like distrust among regions. Every region dey do hin thing hin own way..

People with a barren region got envious and wanted power to control Nigeria. It was why they didn’t only just kill the northern and western premier leader, they abolished our regionalism..

The first coup happened for several reasons.
One, Nigeria was still too young for independence. I mean that's as clear as day.
Second and most important is that we had a weak leader in Prime Minister who was not able to unite the country and bring Nigerians together.
Tafawa Balewa might have been a good man and well polished but was not a strong leader. He first of all, could not bring Nigerians together at a very fractious time in our history where contrary to what you think, there was actually a lot of distrust amongst the regions. The British acted as the neutral and independent monitor when they were around but with them gone there was really no one to act as an independent arbiter and with power in the hand of the North, some in the South were wary about them dominating the govt. Secondly, he was not able to stamp out corruption amongst his cabinet (particularly
Okotie Eboh and Enahoro) which led to them losing credibility amongst Nigerians. A decision that was seen as a motivation by the coup plotters.
But the most egregious was his inability to deal with the western region crisis immediately and decisively. He waited too long and was too tepid and indecisive in his response. Strong leaders dont wait that long to handle a crisis, they take it on head on and diffuse the situation. That was his mistake and this was probably the main reason why the military govt took over. They saw the govt as weak and ineffectual and they thought they could handle the country better.
Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa might have being well educated by Nigerian standards at the time and being a man integrity and upbringing but did not have the temperament to be the leader Nigeria needed at the time. When a strong leader is in place, you need to feel like he is in charge or in control but you never felt that when the Prime Minister was in charge.

Lifestylecom:
Subject to debate though

That one is not subject to debate my brother. In a parliamentary system, you vote for the party and not the presidential (or prime ministerial candidate in this situation). Its the party that then wins the most seat in the house (remember there is no Senate in this system, just a house of lords that is mostly ceremonial) that picks the prime minister and I do t know when APC has had more seats in the house than other parties during election season. If there has been please correct me.
Also, let's say Buhari even became Prime Minister in our hypothetical parliamentary system, I doubt he would have served his full 8 years as parliamentary systems are notorious for kicking out their leaders for almost any missteps either through a party vote (vote of confidence or no confidence) or calling for general elections at almost anytime as they get the votes for that. Just look at the UK. how many heads of states have they had in the past three years alone?

Correct, you get this thing, bravo

davidif:
That one is not subject to debate my brother. In a parliamentary system, you vote for the party and not the presidential (or prime ministerial candidate in this situation). Its the party that then wins the most seat in the house (remember there is no Senate in this system, just a house of lords that is mostly ceremonial) that picks the prime minister and I do t know when APC has had more seats in the house than other parties during election season. If there has been please correct me.
Also, let's say Buhari even became Prime Minister in our hypothetical parliamentary system, I doubt he would have served his full 8 years as parliamentary systems are notorious for kicking out their leaders for almost any missteps. Just look at the UK. how many heads of states have they had in the past three years alone?