It is remarkable that you are having an Africa legislative summit here at Abuja, Nigeria in 2013. Fifteen years ago this summit could not have taken place here, and indeed in most of Africa. Then, law-making in large swaths of Africa was in the hands of dictators, both military and civilian. It is a significant milestone that much of Africa is under democratic rule today. Given Nigeria’s significance in Africa as a leader in the struggle to end foreign rule and apartheid, as guarantor of peace and as a theatre in the struggle to end dictatorial rule and restore democracy, it is quite fitting that you are holding this conference here.
I sincerely thank Nigeria’s National Assembly and its National Institute for Legislative Studies for hosting and organizing this conference. A conference such as this is vital for the growth and development of democracy on our continent. It will enable our legislators to share experiences across their boarders and borrow best practices and avoid pitfalls from the experiences of others. It will hopefully enable healthy interaction and sharing of experiences and concerns among legislators, business leaders, government officials and other interested parties.
I heartily welcome all the delegates from our sister countries in Africa and those who have made the journey from the Caribbean and other parts of the world. I hope you will be enriched by this conference and that you will enjoy Nigeria’s hospitality.
Permit me to say that the topic which has been assigned to me, “Political Parties and Legislative Autonomy,” is quite appropriate and timely. Many of Africa’s democracies, including Nigeria’s, are quite young and, therefore, have challenges of defining the boundaries and contours of their various institutions, including their legislatures. Most of our political parties, especially in multiparty jurisdictions are also rather young and are grappling with issues of party building, party structures, internal democracy and the nature of the relationship between parties and members, legislatures and political parties and political parties and government as well as among parties themselves. Such challenges often lead to conflicts among those institutions, agencies and individuals. And those conflicts are sometimes severe enough to affect governance and threaten the stability of the polity. The recent (and indeed ongoing) struggles between the White House and the Republican Party dominated House of Representatives show that conflicts between different arms of government is not peculiar to Africa or young democracies.
As any follower of Nigeria’s young democracy knows, the nature of the relationship among the arms of government have been quite challenging as the various arms, especially the legislature and executive, struggle to understand their role and powers, and vie for “territory,” as it were. To be sure, our democracy is young. But it is also the case that we have not often taken adequate steps to deepen it. Clearly the legacy of authoritarian rule has not yet been overcome in Nigeria and many other African countries. This is not only because authoritarian rule lasted very long in Nigeria and other African countries but also because many of the key power wielders in our recent history continue to play important roles in the continuing transition to democratic rule. Therefore, the vestiges of intolerance of opposition and criticism remain quite strong. Also the structure of African economies, with the state as the most important source of economic opportunity, heightens the struggle for state power and helps to shape the relationship between parties and members, among parties and among the various arms of government.
Political Parties and Law-Making
Law-making by the people’s representatives in a multi-party political system is one way to enthrone democratic rule and deepen democracy. Under the system, political parties, made up of people who share broadly similar visions and ideas about governing society, contest for power. Thus political parties are critical for democratic governance. They provide spaces for the articulation of ideas and visions for the governance of society for members who broadly share similar visions and ideas. Properly organized and managed, political parties would be vehicles for citizen participation in the political process, the organizing centres of discourse, debates, and contentions by members and consensus moulding for core positions. Through their mechanisms for member interaction, debates, contests and even discipline, parties try to get their interests represented in the legislature. Internal democracy in political parties is, therefore, critical to allow for free expressions by all members and for various tendencies to find space for expression.
Thus, political parties are not monoliths; they often contain individuals and groups with varying tendencies, ideas, interests and aspirations. In multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies such tendencies, interests and aspirations sometimes take on ethnic, religious, regional and, of course, class dimensions. This is why, as many Nigerians know, I have been a strong advocate of a two party system for Nigeria, a country which has these aforementioned fault lines. A two-party system would help to narrow differences among parties as a great deal of differences would already be sorted out within each party.
Through legislation political leaders seek to give legal backing to their vision of society, their programmes and policies. The legislative process allows the vision, programmes and policies of one party, group or individual to contest against those of others. The oversight function of the legislature is another avenue for parties to ensure that their vision of society, as expressed in legislation, is adhered to.
In presidential systems the autonomy of the three arms of government is deemed important for checks and balances and accountability. In parliamentary systems, where the members of the cabinet are also members of the legislature, legislative autonomy assumes a different form. In that system the parliament is supreme. The autonomy of the different arms to carry out their functions is essential because they have specific functions assigned to them by the constitution. It would be inappropriate, for instance, for the Executive and Judiciary which have the responsibilities to execute and interpret the laws respectively, to unduly interfere in the manner in which the laws are made. That is why some independence of the law-making arm is essential. Legislative autonomy would allow the people’s representatives to carefully consider bills, and proposals for the overall interest of the society or segments thereof. It would allow the legislature to carry out its oversight functions and to adequately represent the people.
Each arm of government tends to guard its independence quite jealously, sometimes at the risk of failing to acknowledge the collective nature of governance, that is, that effective governance requires the cooperation of the three arms of government. And because these are institutions run by human beings, power, ego, and territoriality often influence actions.
And it is not peculiar to young democracies, as we can see from the contest of wills between the White and House and the US Capitol. In young democracies the challenges are often exacerbated by a weak economic base, over-reliance on the state for economic opportunities and, especially in Africa, ethnic, regional and religious diversity.
Legislative Autonomy
Legislative autonomy means that the legislature should be able to work without undue interference from the other arms, especially the executive. To be sure, undue interference is subjective and not easy to define. But it is understood when it happens. When the executive arm of government sees the legislature as a mere rubber stamp put there to ratify all its desires without scrutiny and proceeds to treat it as such, it is undue interference. When the Executive ignores or neglects to provide the legislature required information for its legislative or oversight functions, it is undue interference; when the executive uses state law enforcement agencies to harass and intimidate members of the legislature in order to influence how they perform their functions, it is undue interference; when the judiciary through frivolous injunctions or other legal technicalities tries to undermine the work of the legislature, it is undue interference.
The legislature itself can also go to the other extreme and see itself as an adversary or competitor to the executive or the judiciary and tries to use its authority to appropriate and carry out oversight to harass or intimidate members of the executive arm.
What seems to compound matters is that democratic governments are formed by parties which have programs and whose members often constitute the majority of in the legislatures. Those parties seek to use law-making and other legislative duties to advance their programmes and policies. Sometimes the ruling party or the government of the day tends to see the legislature as synonymous with the ruling party and must, therefore, follow the dictates of the ruling party or government of the day. But that is not how democracy is supposed to work.
In my view, our countries and our people would be served better if the various arms, including the legislature, are guided by national interests. As representatives of the people, legislators are closer to the grassroots and are a sounding board for policies and programmes and peoples’ desires and priorities. They capture the peculiarities and specific needs and challenges of our various localities. A President, for instance, has the whole country as constituency, and should focus more on the big picture while the legislature brings together people representing particularities.
Compromises are key to serving the national interest and avoiding gridlock. It is critical for the executive to demonstrate an understanding that the legislature is an institution of state different from the ruling party or sitting government. The Executive, therefore, needs to respect and abide by the authority conferred on the Legislature by the constitution. An instance that can be used to illustrate this is the authority to appropriate funds, with Nigeria as a case. The Nigerian constitution clearly vests the power to appropriate funds in the legislature (i.e. the National Assembly). But too often, over the years, the executive has tended to behave as if it does not fully accept that constitutional provision. It often expects the National Assembly to rubber stamp its spending proposals, notwithstanding that the constitution expects the legislature to critically evaluate such proposals and make amendments where it deems necessary. The executive also tends to treat the legislature as though it is only populated by the members of the ruling party or is an extension of the executive arm itself, and that whatever it wants would be lapped up by the legislature.
The legislature, on its part, also sometimes tends to engage in an expansive reading of its constitutional power and a narrower reading of that of the executive by demonstrating little recognition of the executive’s responsibility to make budgetary proposals based on careful consideration of detailed information that may not be available to the legislature. It thus sometimes tries to supplant the executive and truncate the latter’s spending plans. In many other parts of the world we tend to see the Legislature working hard to rein in the Executive when it comes to spending public funds, by cutting down on the executive’s spending proposals. In Nigeria’s recent history, however, we often see the legislature increasing significantly the spending proposals of the executive. Nigerians are familiar with the annual ritual of the National Assembly rejecting the Executive’s oil price bench mark for budgetary purposes. This has led to persistent struggles between the two arms. Mistrust is at the centre of it all. The national Assembly, speaking somewhat for the states, does not trust that the excess crude money, which belongs to all tiers of government, will be judiciously spent, and with their consent. The Executive, on its part, tends to think of the state governments as spendthrifts that give little thought to the need to save for a rainy day.
Clearly the national interest requires the legislature to appreciate the constitutional role and authority of the executive rather than see it as an adversarial subordinate. The national interest, as the overriding interest, will ensure respect for healthy independence of each arm.
Tensions and conflicts are normal in a democracy. The quest for more power by different arms of government and different personalities is normal. However, such tensions and conflicts should be managed in a mature, accommodating manner and according to the laws of the land. Again the people and the country should be put first.
In my view legislative autonomy can only be guaranteed by internal party democracy, free, fair, and credible elections, and a democratic culture in the wider society. Internal party democracy ensures that party members get to choose the party leaders and their candidates for elections. Those elected to the legislature would, therefore, be the true representatives of their constituents, through whom they would express their views and whom they would hold accountable. The Executive that emerges, especially the President or Prime Minister, would also be a true representative of the whole country, thus reflecting the majority opinion in the country at the time. And with a credible electoral process, the head of state would also be accountable to the people. Being genuine reflections of the people’s choices and committed to the interests of the country and its peoples, the parties and legislatures that emerge will more likely understand and respect the need for relative autonomy of the legislature to carry out its constitutional mandate of law making, oversight and representation of the people. And the Legislature must desire and work to gain autonomy rather than appearing to be willing to surrender its autonomy to the executive except on matters of funding.
Once more I thank the organizers for inviting me and letting me share these thoughts with you. I hope we all have fruitful deliberations.
I thank you for your attention.
