The Legislature and Constituency Representation in the Fourth Republic of Nigeria S Democratic
The Legislature and Constituency Representation in the Fourth Republic of Nigeria’s Democratic Governance
By
SamuelOni, Ph.D
Department of Political Science & International Relations
Covenant University, Ota
,
Abstract
Citizens’ representation embodied in the legislature is a central component and an indispensable principle of democratic governance. This is because the legislature is the primary mechanism of popular sovereignty that provides for the representation in governance, of the diverse interests in a multicultural and subnational society. Legislative institution in Nigeria however, has been viewed as underdeveloped and inexperienced, emanating from the prolonged dictatorial and authoritarian rule by the military which while it lasted, either outrightly proscribed the legislature or completely subordinated it to the executive arm of government. The return to civil rule or constitutional government from military dictatorship in 1999 is essentially the return of the legislature. Disturbingly, twelve years after the commencement of democratization in Nigeria, legislative politics in the country is yet to show clear evidences of citizens’ representation in governance. Findings revealed that the Nigeria’s national parliament though have recorded improvement in terms of legislation and oversight roles, offers a slim ray of hope in championing constituents’ interests due to certain sociopolitical and economic forces that continue to undermine the country’s legislative efficiency.
Keywords: Legislature,Representation, National Assembly, Democratic Governance
Introduction
The concept of constituent representation embodied in the legislature is an important and indispensable principle of any democratic state (Bishin, 2009). This is because the legislature is the primary mechanism of popular sovereignty that provides for the representation in governance, of the diverse interests in a multicultural and subnational society. In performing the role of representation, the legislature serves as a vital link between the government and the governed, the elected and the electorate, the rulers and the ruled (Okoosi-Simbine, 2010). In this view, legislature is charged with the responsibility of ensuring good governance throughconstituent representation in the decision making process especially in a pluralized society characterized by differences and heterogeneity (Johnson, 2005).The legislature is thus, seen as occupying fundamental place in democratic governance and performing crucial role of citizens’ representation for the advancement and well being of the citizenry (Anyaegbunam, 2000).
Legislative representation, though crucial to democratic governance, findings have revealed that the legislature in some political systemshave wide powers and exercises real power while some others have declined in power to a mere rubber stamp assembly for legitimizing the decisions made elsewhere (Heywood, 2007; Lafenwa, 2009). Some scholars observe the abdication of responsibility by Parliament in fulfillment of some other interests noting that published research about legislative representation tends to be much more sanguine about the degree to which popular sovereignty exist than the evidence seems to justify (Bishin, 2009; Saliu & Mohammad, 2010).It is therefore, imperative to ascertain the extent to which the Nigerian legislatures have been able to perform their role of citizens’ policy representation. It is at the backdrop of this that this paper examines the National Assembly and constituency representation in the fourth republic of Nigeria’s democratic governance. The next section is a theoretical exploration of the subject matter.
Legislature, Political Representation and Democracy. A Theoretical Discourse
The legislature occupies a key position in the machinery of government because it is the people’s branch with the purpose of articulating and expressing the collective will of the people (Heywood, 2007; Bernick & Bernick, 2008). Okoosi-Simbine (2010) in the light of this, sees the legislature as the First Estate of the Realm, the realm of representation and the site of sovereignty, the only expression of the will of the people. On this note,Anyaegbunam (2000) conceptualizes the legislature in terms of making, revising, amending and repealing laws for the advancement and well being of the citizenry that it represents. It follows from this analysis that the authority of the legislature is derived from the people and should be exercised in accordance with the will of the people who they represent. This is the position of Bogdanor (1991) when he affirms that the authority of the legislature as a political institution is derived from a claim that the members are representative of the political community, and decisions are collectively made according to complex procedures. Davies (2004) also noted that the establishment of the legislature rests on the assumption that in the final analysis, political power still resides in the people and that the people can, if they choose, delegate the exercise of their sovereignty to elected representatives. Jewell (1997) on the other hand, identified two features that distinguish the legislature from other branches of government. The first feature, according to him, is that the legislature possesses formal authority to make laws, and secondly members are normally elected to represent various elements in the population.
The legislature can thus be seen as an institution established to make laws that embodies the will of the people who they represent. As an organ of government therefore, it is the forum for the representation of the constituents (Miler, 2010). Lafenwa (2009) perhaps, exemplifies the representation role of the legislaturemore clearly when he defineslegislature as an official body, usually chosen by election, with the power to make, change, and repeal laws; as well as powers to represent the constituent units and control government. Loewenberg Patterson (1975) and Okoosi-Simbine, (2010) also concede to this important view of the legislature as the people’s representative as they view the legislature as assemblies of elected representatives from geographically defined constituencies, with lawmaking functions in the governmental process of a country. Legislators are responsible for representing the differences in society. These differences may be rooted in geography, ethnicity, religion, political identification, gender, or other characteristics (Johnson, 2005, Miler, 2010).
The concept of representation is however, elusive with very few agreeing on any particular definition. In fact, from the time of Plato, the subject representation remainsa debate among political scientists (Scully & Farell (2001).Sacchett 92008)tends to depict the representationprimarily in terms of its structural key-elements, as a relationship between a principal (representative) and an agent (represented), concerning an object (interests, opinions, etc), and taking place in a particular setting (the political context). Accordingly, Castiglione & Warren (2006) sees the concept of representation as having three key characteristics. Firstly, that representation invokes a principal-agent relationship (the representatives stood for and acted on behalf of the represented), mainly though not exclusively, on a territorial and formal basis, so that governments could be said to be responsive to the interests and opinions of the people. Secondly, that representation identifies a place for political power to be exercised responsibly and with a degree of accountability, in large part by enabling citizens to have some influence upon and exercise some control over it, and thirdly, that the right to vote for representatives provides a simple means and measure of political equality.Loewenberg & Pattern (1979) however, conceptualise representation in terms of relationship between the representative (legislature) and the represented (constituents). They therefore pointed out four basic elements of representation expressed by the legislature. According to them, the first feature is the focus of representation expressed in terms of legislators’ perception of what make up their constituents. The constituents can be geographical delineated area, political party or other kind of constituency such as ethnic groups, gender, social classes or interest group. The second feature, according to Loewenberg & Pattern (1979), is the style of representation which focuses of the way the legislators respond to their constituents. In this view, the legislators can act on the expressed preferences of their constituents (delegate), follow his intuition (trustee) or act according to prevailing circumstances (polito). The third feature however, is the components of the responsiveness, that is, the kind of expectations the legislators respond to. Thus the expected components could be policies on certain issues, provision of some services, allocation of public resources or symbolic (psychological needs). (Mansbridge, 2003), on the other hand, identifies four different forms of representation in modern democracies. The first according to her, is the promissory representation which is the one in which the representatives focus on what they promised their constituents before they were elected. The second form of representation is the anticipatory representation, that is, the type in which the representatives focus on what they think constituents will approve in the next elections. The third form is the gyroscopic representation, a type in which the representatives look within their personal background to derive interests and principles, without external incentives. The fourth type of representation according to Mansbridge (2003), is the surrogative representation. In this form of representation, the representatives tend to represent individuals, groups, party or institutions outside their particular constituency. Example of this form of representation is the monetary surrogacy which occurs when citizens with high income, contribute to the electoral success of representatives outside their district or party and as a result acquire a sort of power over them (Sacchett, 2008). This type is likened to the politics of godfatherism in Nigeria in which elected representatives tend to satisfy the interests of their godfathers who were seen as instrumental to their electoral victory at the detriment of the electorate.Political representation can also be defined as the articulation and presentation of political agendas of given groups by various actors in decision-making arenas and key social forums in democratic societies. In the view of Urbinati (2000) however, an analysis of the concept of representation should not be limited to formal aggregation of interests but the preservation of differences necessary for maintain liberty, procedural rules of proportionality and equality within civil society and accountability of the representative to the represented.
The fact that interest aggregation, equality and liberty constitute the core of representation makes the concept of representation a hallmark of democracy. This is because democracy is characterized by its emphasis on the values of popular sovereignty (the idea that the majority should rule), liberalism (the idea that all people are equal), and liberty (Bishin, 2009). That is why Pollack, et ‘all (2009) averred that the invention of representation is purposely for the practicability of democracy, and therefore, it is unimaginable to think of democracy outside political representation. This position is perhaps more vividly argued by Edigheji (2006) when he noted that a distinguishing feature of democratic governance is that the electorate chooses leaders through regular, multiparty and competitive elections, which are seen as the primary mechanisms for political representation. As Mohammad (2007) rightly averred, the existence of an independent legislative institution composed of representatives of the people is a distinguishing hallmark of democratic government.Representation is inherent in the practice of democracy and the need for effectivestructures and practices of legislative representation is central to a functioning democratic political system (Scully & Farell (2001). Representation occurs from the very essence of legislators as ambassadors of the various communities in the country (Okoosi-Simbine, 2010).Thus, Davies (2004) averred that representative liberal democracy cannot exist without a healthy, lively and credible legislature. As Lafenwa (2009) argues, the legislature is the central element of representative democracy.
The Legislature and Political Representation in Nigeria.
It has been argued that governmental institutions for makingand implement policies, and settle disputes had existed in the kingdoms and communities in Nigeria before the advent of the colonial master (Fashagba, 2009). Modern legislatureas an institutionof political representation in Nigeria is however, traceable to colonial engineeringwith the establishment of the Legislative Council in 1862 for the Colony of Lagos. The council was however,dominated by Europeans with only two Nigerian representatives as unofficial members (Oyediran, 2007). The subsequentconstitutions promulgated for Nigeria in 1922, 1933, 1946, 1951, 1954 and 1960 by the colonialist, further provided for the Nigerian legislative institutions (Aghalino, 2006). The introduction of Elective Principle by the 1922 Constitution ushered in a representative democracy because for the first time, Nigerians had the opportunity of electing their representatives and participating in the legislative process (Anifowose, 2008). This was however limited as only 4 representatives (one from Calabar and three from Lagos) could be elected by fewNigerians (Oyediran, 2007). Besides, in spite of the embracive coloration of the Nigerian Legislative Council, its jurisdiction was confined to the southern Provinces, including the colony of Lagos. The Northern Provinces were not represented in the legislative politics of the country (Anifowose, 2008).
The Nigerian Legislature under the colonial state could not perform legislative functions as the most important institution of a liberal democratic state. The colonial legislatures were designed to serve as agencies for articulation of views and ventilation of popular feelings that were not expected to radically change the patterns and policies of the respective colonial governments (Alabi, 2009). They were mere ratificatory assemblies for the executive directives of the Colonial Governor (Awotokun, 1998). This orientation was to have a long lasting effect on the performance of the legislature, not only during but even years after effective renunciation of colonial rule. In 1963 a national daily newspaper was quoted to have referred to the Federal Legislature as an expensive and irrelevant talking shop (Awotokun, 1998). The Report of the Political Bureau of March 1987 revealed that up until 1979, the Nigerian legislatures were the weakest link in the making of public policies in Nigeria (MAMSER, 1987). The second and aborted third Republics’ legislatures did not improve significantly in terms of their performance. This basic institution of democratic governance remained weak and vulnerable to executive manipulation under conditions of enormous concentration of power and resources in the executive presidency (Ibeanu and Egwu, 2007).
The Nigerian legislative institution, though started as a deliberative organ of the colonial government, has however, developed to become a full fledged legislative institution of law making, representation and oversight. Paradoxically, the emerging legislature has remained junior partners of the executive in the politics and government of Nigeria after independence. The authoritarian legacy of colonialism destroyed the power balance of the organs of government (Schraeder, 2000). Despite the powers, functions and privileges provided for the legislature in most Nigerian constitutions after independence, the challenges of governance faced by the post-independent Nigeria whicheither put the legislature in abeyance or subjected it to manipulations and control of the patrimonial executive rulers,further reinforced the weaknesses of Nigeria’s legislative institutions(Saliu & Muhammad, 2010).
The advent of independence of Nigeria from the colonial master in 1960 ushered in new dreams and expectations as instrument of power was being handed to a democratic rule. These dreams were however, soon shattered as government after government began to fall victims to military dictatorship and ushered in another era in the political history of Nigeria.Military incursion in to the political arena of Nigeria further worsened the precarious situation of the legislative body (Okoosi-Simbine, 2010). For almost three decades under different military regimes, the National Assembly suffered various forms of subjugation and proscription(Alabi, 2009). Each time the legislative institution came under military assault, the legislature is abrogated, and its powers merged with that of the executive military rulers who, through a supreme military governing organ, wielded both the legislative and executive (and a times, judicial) powers and exercised legislative powers by way of promulgating Military Decrees (Fasagba &Alabi, 2009). In such a situation, the legislatures as representative institution could not but be seriously weakened.
The Second republic which was ushered in by the promulgation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, provided for a bicameral legislature separated in functions and personnel from the executive organ under an Executive Presidential system of government (Anifowose, 2008). There was a Senate, with a membership strength of 95, (each of them 19 states in the country produced five Senators), and a Federal House of Representatives with a membership strength of 450. The second republic was however, abruptly terminated by a Military coup on December 31, 1983.When the legislature was permitted to exist under schemes of diarchy during the aborted third republic, this organ of government remained within the stranglehold of the military rulers who used the legislature not as representative of people’s will, but to create some sense of legitimacy for their administrations (Awotokun, 1998).
The legislative institution of Nigeria during the decades of military administration was therefore, denied the advantage of experience which is the cornerstone of the enviable tradition of legislative supremacy and significance in the governance of the advanced democracies (Kaiser, 2005). Because the Nigeria’s legislatures were hardly permitted to make mistakes and learn from lessons of the past by the military rulers who seized every opportunity of major disagreements in parliaments to truncate democratic rule, the legislatures got weakened and remained inexperienced compared to other arms of government as soon as a return to democratic rules were permitted. The legislative arm is thus, the least institutionalized following this long history of authoritarianism in Nigeria (Saliu & Muhammad, 2010).
The return to civil rule or constitutional government from military dictatorship in 1999 is essentially the return of the legislative representation in Nigeria. The 1999 Constitution upon which the Fourth Republic of Nigeria anchors provided for a bicameral National Assembly with power to check and balance those of the executive. The Senate, with three members representing each of the three senatorial districts of each state of the federation on equal bases irrespective of size and one for the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja, has 109 members (FGN, 2009). The House of Assembly, the lower chamber, represents the people with the 360 members elected from districts of roughly equal population size (McCormick, 2007). As noted by Rehfeld (2005), the virtue of heterogeneous electoral constituencies emerges from a set of uncontroversial principles of democratic legitimacy such as the notion that representatives should be accountable to those who elect them. Thus the delineation of Nigeria into constituencies is justified by the heterogeneity and multi-ethnocultural diversity of the Nigerian state. The constitutional responsibilities of the National Assembly include making laws for the peace, progress and good governance of the country (Nwanolue, & Ojukwu, 2012). Some responsibilities are,however, exclusive to the Senate. These include the Screening and confirmation of both members of the Federal Executive or Ministers, and ambassadorial nominees.There is an Exclusive Legislative List of 68 items and a Concurrent List defining the extent of Federal and State Legislative powers. On the account of these exclusive responsibilities, the Senate is regarded as the UpperHouse of the National Assembly, and the House of Representative, the Lower. The Senate is presided over by Senate President while the House by a Speaker (FGN, 1999).