OPINION:Why Mr President is not ‘the government’

When discussing ‘government’ in this country we always seem to focus only on the ‘presidency’ or simply the person of who ever is the President. That is why we often hear expressions such as ‘Jonathan’s government’ or as it is currently the case, ‘Buhari’s government.’
Sometimes we also hear imperialistic gaffes such as ‘my government’ instead of ‘my presidency’ or simply ‘my administration.’ The impression is thus given that the ‘government’ is synonymous with the ‘President.’

While such a categorisation may be acceptable in a monarchical setting like that in England where it is proper to refer to the British government as the ‘Crown’s government’ or His or Her ‘Majesty’s government,’ such would simply be incorrect in a republican set-up like Nigeria where the government is generally believed to belong to the people in their sovereign capacity. An American President will never officially use the phrase ‘my government.’ You are more likely to hear ‘my presidency,’ ‘the Executive’ or the more inclusive ‘our administration.’ To say, ‘My government’ would instantly provoke a torrent of anti-imperialistic sentiments from amongst the republican-minded American public.

It is anomalous while speaking with constitutional accuracy to imply that the government of Nigeria belongs to an identifiable individual. President Buhari, for example, is responsible for only the Executive department of the government which is formalised in the presidency. The government is composed of three autonomous constitutional organs which are vested with separate functions, namely, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Therefore, we may have the ‘Buhari presidency’ but not the ‘Buhari government.’

That was why we disagreed with those who, rather than complained about the President’s failure to form his cabinet early, were instead talking about his failure to ‘form the government.’ To the extent that it was beyond him to operate both the Judiciary and the Legislature, two essential components of government, he could not therefore be charged for not ‘forming the government.’

Truth is, there is always a government in place as long as either the Judicial or the Legislative department or both are functioning unimpeded. That is a part of the feedback stabilisation mechanism built into the constitution in order to avoid vacuum in governance. Furthermore, by virtue of section 5 of the Constitution, the moment the President and the Vice-President take their oaths of office, the Executive organ is, for all intents and purposes, established, with or without ministers.

Historically, modern democracies evolved from ancient monarchical systems which became reformed by the various revolutionaries and radical philosophical developments that took place in Europe which saw to the gradual and, in some places, violent transfer of state powers from single monarchies to a collective of elected representatives through a set of criteria that give the ultimate power of the government to the people— democracy.

Whereas the head of the executive department is often accepted as the alter ego of the government and the repository of its sovereign attributes, the operative constituents of government actually include other bodies outside of the presidency. Montesquieu, the French philosopher, formalised this structural imperatives of modern governments in his famous writings about ‘separation of powers,’ a doctrine which he argued, is a practical contrivance for avoiding tyranny.

In reality, the executive arm, comprising the presidency, is the most visible arm of the government but the legislature must first enact the laws authorising specific actions of government before the President can lawfully execute them but because the president is the ‘face of government,’ the natural thing is for people to focus on the executive being the ‘government in action,’ whereas in a truly constitutional system, all actions of the executive must be backed by law and are essentially tentative until they have received judicial endorsements whenever challenged.

Why then do people still casually associate the entire gamut of state activities with the President? The simple answer is that being the only office holder elected on a nationwide ticket, known to all and responsible to all in many direct ways than could be expected from either the Legislature or the Judiciary, he is the chief steward. What is more, he wields the sword in the official capacity of the Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. So it has come to be the norm that the government is often personalised in the president even though the business of government is shared with the other two co-equal organs.

It is the totality of the performances of the other departments of government, the Legislature and Judiciary inclusive, that gives validity to government actions. The Executive cannot be said to have fulfilled its constitutional mandate without the concurrence of both the Judiciary and the Legislature in their constitutional trinity. Any other proposition is both unconstitutional and suspect.

Why then do we often limit our evaluation of governments to the performances of the Executive? The technical alibi that is sometimes accorded the other organs is a negation of the reality of the type of government that we have opted to institute. The President may be the captain of the government but he alone does not constitute the team. Why then do we attach so much importance to the presidency in ways that seem to conceptually resurrect all the abandoned imperial peculiarities of ancient monarchies?

Since we copied our current system from the United States, it may be helpful if, in trying to unravel the intricacies of the office of modern president and his powers that we take a look at how the office has evolved there. Those who framed the U.S. Constitution (the Founding Fathers) were not quite clear in their minds what exactly they wanted the office to be. The result was that the constitutional provisions dealing with the office of the US president are full of ambiguities.

For example, when they granted legislative powers to Congress, they did not mince words about their intentions as Article 1 was very clear as to what it gives, thus: “All legislative powers herein granted shall vest in a Congress of the United States of America” whereas article 1(2) which establishes the Executive department merely states, “There shall be a President for the United States of America” without specifying the scope and limits of his powers. Happily, those who drafted our Constitution took advantage of the jurisprudence and operational culture that have since evolved around the office.

The Nigerian Constitution more or less copied the philosophy of the U.S. Constitution, it should therefore not surprise us that we also do not know what are exact boundaries of presidential powers vis-a-vis the other organs of government. Many US-type presidents have done things they thought they were entitled to do as the ‘Head of State’ only to find themselves roundly judicially carpeted for lack of lawful authority.

It would therefore seem as if presidents are sometimes unduly elevated well beyond what the Constitution prescribes. The reality is that the President possesses the ‘executive powers’ to hire and fire on behalf of government; the power to disburse patronage, award contracts, grant pardons, conduct diplomatic business with the rest of the world; serve the ‘national cake’ and spread the ‘butter.’ All these give him the preeminent image of the ‘father of the nation.’

Little wonder therefore that the President often comes into intensive scrutiny whenever things are not going well but habitually attracts the credit and adulation when things are rosy—uneasy is the head that wears the crown, even in a republic! So PMB, like all other presidents should not expect anything less: tons of praises, criticisms, expectations, reasonable and unreasonable, all the way.