Presidential or parliamentary system: where is the convergence? – Dr. Muiz Banire

Few weeks ago, precisely, on the 1st of June, 2024, legal juggernauts and other distinguished personalities, led by the Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Kashim Shetima, GCON, gathered in Ilorin in honour of Professor Yussuf Alli, SAN, while celebrating the three decades of the existence of his law firm. Undoubtedly, it was a gathering of well-meaning Nigerians across the strata of the society. Once again, I say congratulations to him and members of his team. Beyond the unveiling of the book documenting the strides of the Chambers, the major spice of the event was the lecture delivered by no less an erudite scholar than the former Governor of Lagos State , a past Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria in his own right, Babatunde Fashola, SAN. The lecture is as titled above. In his usual candour, he detailed out the essential determinants of his perception of the best governance system for the country. The highly educative and scintillating lecture , articulately presented was prefaced with the issue of restructuring. As rightly remarked by him, there seems, till date, not to be a consensus on the desired mode of restructuring the country for the purpose of growth.

Different segments of the society have diverse perspectives of the concept of restructuring. While some call it fiscal restructuring, some believe it is geographical restructuring that is required while others believe in the structural readjustment to address the perceived injustice in the country. This implies the need for consensus building around the subject. The presentation, which was triggered through the evaluation of the reasons advanced by the sixty members of the House of Representatives demanding the parliamentary system of government, ended with the lecturer’s continued preference for the presidential system of government. The said apostles of the parliamentary system premised their submission on the conduct of election in a single day and uniform manner, thereby eliminating the complex logistics problem and astronomical expenditure; reduction in cost of governance; enhancement of the rule of law; spread of representation; economic growth; stability in the polity; reduction in corruption; ability of the citizens to participate in, and follow issues of governance; speedy implementation of policies and programs; taming autocratic tendency of the individual tagged ‘president’ and finally, responsive governance.
In Fashola’s view, preponderance of the reasons advanced above are possible of being enjoyed under the Presidential system. Before delving further, let me adopt the Wikipedia definition of parliamentary system as quoted by Fashola, in order to aptly situate this conversation. “ A parliamentary system or parliamentary democracy , is defined as a system of democratic government where the head of government (who may also be the head of state) derives his democratic legitimacy from his ability to command the support (“confidence”) of the legislature, typically a parliament to which they are accountable”. In his further contention, the guest lecturer believed that it is only the presidential system that is capable of accommodating the diverse interests of Nigerians. This is in addition to the fact that the system creates more opportunities for the people to serve. In his further contention, election costs can be significantly reduced through ingenious techniques and technology, and cost of governance reduced by deliberate choice of the people, for example, unicameral legislature.
He critiqued frequency of change of heads of government in the parliamentary system as in UK where, within a spate of 10 years, there had been change of heads five times, or that of Japan where 11 prime ministers had emerged within twenty one years. Finally, that the parliamentary system has greater potential for autocracy than even presidential system as the head of government is equally a lawmaker. In his concluding remarks, he opined as follows: “ the central message is to urge us to be very rigorous as we debate this potentially monumental choice. It must not simply be a choice between escaping from where it seems not to be working and what failed calamitously. That would be a false choice or no choice. In conclusion therefore, I would urge that we think very deeply , ask ourselves why the parliamentary system failed us so woefully and whether we have overcome or can overcome those reasons. In addition to querying the system, we must query ourselves and decide whether we are the problem instead of the system. …..All told, we must reflect very deeply , interrogate intensely and look very hard before we leap”.
Let me state from the outset that while commending and appreciating the reasonings of the former Governor, I am still unable to agree with the reasonings advanced. To this extent , I will be interrogating the issue from my perspectives, but certainly not without laying the right foundation. In the realm of democratic governance, two prominent systems stand out: the parliamentary system and the presidential system. Each has its distinct features, mechanisms, and implications for political stability, governance, and democratic representation.
This intervention is essentially to justify my preference for the parliamentary system in terms of political stability, accountability, representation, and policy-making efficiency. One of the most significant advantages of a parliamentary system is its propensity for political stability. In a parliamentary system, the executive branch derives its legitimacy from the legislature and is dependent on the confidence of the parliamentary majority. This interdependence creates a more cohesive and stable government. The head of government, usually a prime minister, can be removed through a vote of no confidence, which acts as a mechanism to ensure that the executive remains accountable to the legislature and, by extension, to the electorate. In contrast, a presidential system often faces the risk of political gridlock, especially when the president and the legislature are controlled by different parties. This separation of powers can lead to conflicts and impasses, hindering effective governance.

The fixed-term nature of a presidential system also means that a president who has lost public or legislative support cannot be easily removed from office, potentially leading to prolonged periods of ineffective or unpopular governance. Buhari/Saraki era validate this. Accountability is a cornerstone of democratic governance, and the parliamentary system inherently promotes greater accountability. Since the executive is drawn from the legislature, parliamentary systems ensure that the government remains answerable to elected representatives on a continuous basis. Regular question periods, debates, and votes of confidence or no confidence provide structured opportunities for scrutinizing the executive’s actions and policies. Moreover, the close relationship between the executive and the legislative branches in a parliamentary system facilitates transparency. Ministers, who are also members of parliament, are directly accountable to their constituents and the legislature. This dual role ensures that ministers are continuously engaged with the electorate’s needs and concerns, thereby fostering a more responsive and responsible government. In contrast, the presidential system often suffers from a lack of direct accountability.
Separation of powers can create a distance between the executive and the legislature, reducing the opportunities for direct oversight. While mechanisms like impeachment exist, they are typically cumbersome and rarely used. The oversight system in the country is simply exhortative and road block. Consequently, a president may govern with relatively less scrutiny, potentially leading to unchecked executive power. Representation in a democratic system ensures that diverse interests and perspectives are reflected in governance. The parliamentary system tends to be more representative due to its structure and electoral mechanisms. Proportional representation, often used in parliamentary elections, allows for a broader spectrum of political parties and viewpoints to be represented in the legislature. This inclusivity ensures that minority groups and smaller political entities have a voice in the legislative process. Furthermore, coalition governments, which are common in parliamentary systems, necessitate negotiation and compromise among various political factions. This collaborative approach ensures that a wider range of interests are considered in policy-making, leading to more inclusive and representative governance. On the other hand, presidential systems often rely on majoritarian electoral methods, such as first-past-the-post, which can marginalize smaller parties and minority groups.
The winner-takes-all nature of presidential elections can lead to a concentration of power and representation in the hands of a single individual or party, potentially excluding significant portions of the electorate from meaningful participation in governance. Efficiency in policy making is another critical advantage of the parliamentary system. The fusion of the executive and legislative branches allows for more streamlined and cohesive decision-making processes. Since the government must maintain the confidence of the majority in the legislature, there is a greater alignment of interests and priorities between the executive and legislative branches. This alignment facilitates the passage of legislation and the implementation of policies, reducing the likelihood of legislative gridlock. Additionally, the ability to call early elections in a parliamentary system provides a mechanism for resolving political deadlocks. If a government loses the confidence of the parliament, new elections can be held to seek a fresh mandate from the electorate. This flexibility ensures that the government remains effective and responsive to changing political dynamics. In contrast, presidential systems often experience inefficiencies due to separation of powers. The independent election of the president and the legislature can lead to conflicting mandates and priorities, resulting in stalemates and delays in policy making.
The fixed-term nature of the presidency also means that there are fewer mechanisms to address political impasses, potentially leading to prolonged periods of legislative inactivity. The parliamentary system’s flexibility is another compelling reason for its preference. Parliamentary systems can adapt more readily to changing political and social contexts. The possibility of calling early elections or forming coalition governments allows parliamentary systems to respond dynamically to shifts in public opinion and political alignments. This adaptability contrasts with the rigidity of presidential systems, where fixed terms and separate elections limit the ability to respond to changing circumstances. The inflexibility of presidential systems can lead to prolonged governance crises when the executive and legislature are at odds, as there are fewer mechanisms to resolve such conflicts promptly. Parliamentary systems also tend to have a lower risk of sliding into authoritarianism compared to presidential systems. The collective nature of parliamentary governance, with its emphasis on coalition-building and legislative oversight, acts as a check against the concentration of power in a single individual. The requirement for the executive to maintain the confidence of the legislature ensures that power remains dispersed and accountable. In contrast, the presidential system’s structure, with its strong, independent executive, can create opportunities for consolidation of power. Presidents may exploit their position to undermine checks and balances, weaken legislative oversight, and erode democratic institutions.
Historical examples from various countries have shown that presidential systems are more susceptible to authoritarian tendencies, especially in the absence of robust democratic norms and institutions. What we experienced under President Olusegun Obasanjo was quite close to this as the President displayed the fullpowers of an executive president leading to subversion of other democratic institutions by electoral rigging and declaration of state of emergency in some federating States of Nigeria. The ill-fated third term agenda is another example of what a presidential system can be used for to subvert constitutional rules. Furthermore, contrary to the suggestion by the guest speaker that the parliamentary system of the 1st Republic failed, nothing can be far from the truth. It was the democratic experiment that failed for myriads of reasons beyond the scope of this conversation.
While I also agree to an extent that the cost of conduct of elections can be reduced through technology, it can never be as significant as in the adoption of parliamentary system. The techniques and technology can equally impact the cost further under parliamentary system. In terms of cost of governance, there is no basis for comparison as under parliamentary system where bureaucrats usually take their rightful positions, saving the system of the unnecessary expenses of retinue of aides by political appointees under the presidential system. I certainly will not contest the need for further deep interrogation of the issue just as I believe that the people’s attitudes matter but certainly not that impactful on the system of government. In conclusion, the preference for a parliamentary system over a presidential system is justified on multiple grounds.
Parliamentary systems promote political stability through the interdependence of the executive and legislative branches, ensuring continuous accountability and responsiveness to the electorate. They offer more inclusive and representative governance by accommodating diverse political voices and facilitating coalition-building. The efficiency and flexibility of policy making in parliamentary systems enable more effective and adaptive governance. Additionally, the reduced risk of authoritarianism in parliamentary systems underscores their suitability for sustaining democratic governance. While both systems have their merits and can function effectively under the right conditions, the inherent advantages of the parliamentary system make it a more robust and resilient framework for democratic governance. By fostering stability, accountability, representation, and efficiency, parliamentary system offers a compelling model for nations seeking to build and sustain democratic institutions and practices.
Although there are couples of areas of convergence, the truth is that I am more convinced of the positive impact of parliamentary system than any other forms. Today, Nigerians largely believe the Presidential system has failed us and there is need for trying another option. No evidence exists as to the failure of the earlier experimentation of parliamentary system in this country.