Why the Senate’s Single Six-Year Term Proposal Should Be Rejected By Ogaga Ifowodo

Soon after his election, President Jonathan proposed his panacea for
the political troubles of Nigeria: a single six-year term. And now
half of the nation's senators, purporting to know the will of the
people, have dutifully obliged him by rubber-stamping the obnoxious
idea. Their premise is that democracy, and not itswould-be
practitioners, is to blame for the failure of representative
governance in our country. The logic is as follows: the president and
state governors are always consumed by the goal of securing a second
four-year term under the current system.
Consequently, they abandon governance and, using the enormous power
and privileges of incumbency, squander time and scarce financial
resources in that bid. Senator Ekweremadu's committee puts it beyond
doubt: "the financial expenses often associated with re-elections"
and the need to "ensurethat the executive heads are freed from
distractions so that they can concentrate on public policy issues."
Only that the president and senators' solution has nothing to do with
democracy and everything with the anti-democratic disposition of our
politicians. The problem we have is that of trying to practise
democracy without democrats; of having as its standard-bearers persons
weaned on the poisonous milk of military dictatorship, steeped in the
culture ofpower without responsibility and political office as the
gateway to unaccountable riches. It is almost axiomatic that a single
term turns the office holder into an autocrat with theelimination of
the most effective check on power. So the president or a governor may
not be distracted by the quest for a second term, but might he not be
by any number of megalomaniacal dreams? For example, to be the "Eze
Ego" (king of money) of Africa, the Ogidigborigbo (ask ex-Governor
Ibori what this means) of the universe? The dream ofowning the most
prestigious golf course on earth? To steal enough to build a private
heaven amidst the poverty and misery of the vast majority of his
fellow citizens?
Were Jonathan and his senators reallyinterested in radically cutting
the exorbitant cost of our demon-cracy and imbibing a genuine spirit
of service, they would have considered a more sensible alternative:
parliamentary government. Unfortunately, they take the presidential
system as sacrosanct. Webegan our experiment in self-governance with
the parliamentary system. Then in 1979, we sought to conjure national
unity through the magic of a president elected by popular mandate.
Hoping, thereby, to slay once and for all the monster of tribalism.
Well, you know it: that dream has since been turned into a nightmare
by the ensuing mechanical notion of unity which transformed a shaky
but thriving federation into a constricting unitary state.
It is time, I think, to return to the parliamentary model. For one,
the presidential system tends to be prohibitively expensive, in poor
and rich countries alike. Moreover, it has failed to deliver to us the
golden fleece of national unity. And speaking of democracy, how much
more representative can a system be than one which makes politics
truly local? In a parliamentary system, the candidate stands for
election in her own immediate constituency. Her electorate consists of
the people bestable to judge her character and fitness for public
office. At the centre, the party with the majority of seats forms the
government. And failing a clear governing majority, forms alliances to
that end. One could arguethat the parliamentary system is more
conducive to federalism defined as the devolution of power by
constituent units to a central authority. And that the United States,
ironically, is the perfect illustration of this concept: its president
is not elected by popular ballot but by an Electoral College
constituted by the states' delegates.
But that is not the only ideal that recommends the parliamentary
model. Six or eight years, in my view, is not enough time for
meaningful achievement in a country without passable basic
infrastructure (roads, railways, electricity and communications grids,
schools, healthcare, water works, etc.). Under aparliamentary system,
the tenure of a dynamic and truly transformative leader would be
subject only to the popular will. Left to me, I would say that if only
for his bold commitment to an effective urban mass transit system by
way of a light rail metro network in Lagos, Governor Fashola ought to
remain in office for as long as his electorate returns him. Vision and
dedication to the common good being so rare among our politicians, we
ought to be able to retain the few who display these qualities to any
appreciable degree. A parliamentary system enables this and, even
better, the electorate does not have to wait till the end of an
electoral cycle before ridding itself of a corrupt or inept
government: elections can be called at any time as a referendum on the
party and persons in power.Still, it is true that without statesmen
and women, no form of government is any good. "For forms of
governmentlet fools contest," the great English wit, Alexander Pope,
proclaimed in his "Essay on Man," adding that "Whate'er is best
administer'd is best." I agree insofar as Pope presumes selfless men
and women who can be trusted to rise above the claims of this or that
ideology or social system. Unfortunately, these are not the kind of
men seeking to persuade us that in order to advance democracy, we must
first constrict and weaken it.
omoliho@gmail.com