The Presidential System vs. The Parliamentary System: Lessons for Nigeria

Governments across the world function through different political frameworks, with the American presidential system and the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system serving as two of the most influential models. Both systems have unique structures, advantages, and challenges that define governance in their respective nations.

The presidential system, as seen in the United States, features a clear separation of powers. The executive, led by the president, operates independently of the legislature. The president is elected separately from lawmakers and has a fixed term, ensuring stability but sometimes leading to legislative gridlock if there is opposition in Congress. This system promotes strong executive authority and direct accountability to the electorate but can foster political deadlock and excessive partisanship.

The parliamentary system, as practiced in the United Kingdom, integrates the executive and legislative branches. The head of government, the prime minister, is typically the leader of the majority party in parliament and is accountable to the legislative body. This system allows for greater flexibility, efficiency in passing legislation, and a government that is more responsive to the will of the people. However, it may also lead to frequent changes in leadership if there is political instability.

Nigeria has experienced both parliamentary and presidential systems of government. Upon gaining independence in 1960, Nigeria adopted the Westminster-style parliamentary system, inherited from British colonial rule. The prime minister was the head of government, while a ceremonial president served as the head of state. This system fostered collaboration between the executive and the legislature, ensuring that governance was rooted in party discipline and parliamentary accountability.

However, the first republic was short-lived due to political crises, leading to military rule in 1966. Following years of military dictatorship, Nigeria transitioned to a presidential system in 1979, modeled after the United States. The rationale was to establish a strong, centralized leadership that could unify the diverse ethnic and political groups within the country.

Despite the intention of the presidential system to provide stability, Nigeria has struggled with governance challenges, including excessive executive dominance, corruption, electoral disputes, and legislative inefficiencies. Given these realities, reverting to a parliamentary system presents several advantages:

1. Greater Political Accountability – In a parliamentary system, the executive is directly accountable to the legislature, reducing the likelihood of unchecked executive power and fostering responsible governance.
2. Reduced Cost of Governance – The current presidential system encourages bloated government spending due to the existence of separate executive and legislative structures. A parliamentary system streamlines governance and reduces unnecessary expenditures.
3. Enhanced Representation and Collaboration – The nature of parliamentary democracy encourages coalition-building, ensuring that diverse political interests are adequately represented in government decision-making.
4. Prevention of Executive Gridlock – Unlike the presidential system, where the legislature and executive often clash over policy directions, a parliamentary system ensures smoother law-making and implementation.
5. Better Ethnic and Regional Inclusion – Given Nigeria’s diverse ethnic composition, a parliamentary system encourages power-sharing and reduces the risk of winner-takes-all politics that fuels ethnic tensions.

Throughout history, nations have altered their systems of government in response to political, economic, and social dynamics. Two notable examples of countries that transitioned from one system to another, reshaping their governance structures to better suit their evolving needs are:

1. France: From Monarchy to Republic

France underwent a significant transformation from an absolute monarchy to a republic during the French Revolution (1789–1799). Before the revolution, France was ruled by the monarchy under King Louis XVI. However, widespread discontent over inequality, heavy taxation, and lack of representation led to the fall of the monarchy. In 1792, France declared itself a republic, abolishing the monarchy and introducing a system based on democratic principles. Though France has experienced multiple changes in governance, it remains a republic today, embodying values of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

2. Russia: From Tsarist Autocracy to Communist State

Russia’s governance underwent a drastic shift in 1917 during the Bolshevik Revolution. Under Tsar Nicholas II, Russia was an autocratic monarchy with centralised rule. However, dissatisfaction with economic hardships, military failures in World War I, and political oppression led to the overthrow of the Tsarist regime. The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, established a socialist state, transforming Russia into the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1922. This marked the transition from a monarchy to a one-party communist government, significantly impacting global politics throughout the 20th century.

Nigeria’s current presidential system has resulted in leadership that is often unaccountable, governance structures that are costly, and a political climate that breeds corruption and inefficiency. A return to the parliamentary system would enhance political stability, foster national unity, and promote governance that is more responsive to the needs of the people. By revisiting its political history and drawing lessons from successful parliamentary democracies, Nigeria has an opportunity to adopt a system that prioritizes collective decision-making, efficiency, and accountability for the greater good of the nation.