At the edge of noon on December 15, 2021, the embattled British prime minister; Boris Johnson stood by the dispatch box in the middle of Britain’s house of commons to defend his government after more than one hundred legislators from his own conservative party rebelled against it the previous night.
Despite boasting a huge majority in parliament, this was the biggest revolt against Johnson’s premiership since he took over the reins from Theresa May in July 2019. Against the backdrop of this rebellion were also festering allegations that Johnson had had a number of parties in his prime ministerial residence while the rest of the country was in lockdown last year.
Nevertheless, the rebellion came primarily as a result of the government’s decision to introduce more restrictions in England following an increase in Covid/omicron cases which was approaching 200,000 at the time. At 12:15pm, the atmosphere in the house became tense as British legislators huddled beside each other on the green benches of the common’s chamber eagerly anticipating the prime minister’s reaction to his humiliating defeat.
Knowing he had to rely on the main opposition to get his proposed measures through the house, it was obvious from Johnson’s countenance that he would rather be somewhere else.
However, as a result of a unique parliamentary convention in Britain, the prime minister has to face questions every week from the leader of the opposition party and other members of the parliament about the current policies of his government. Since 1997, this event; known as “prime minister’s questions” has been held as a 30-minute sitting every Wednesday when the house of commons is in session.
In its rawest form, the political debate exhibited on prime minister’s questions is one of the core pillars of accountability in Britain’s democracy. Beyond just a platform for the opposition parties to ridicule the policies of the government, this event subjects the prime minister to intense scrutiny from the leader of the opposition and other members of the British parliament, including those from the prime minister’s party.
At the same time, “Prime minister’s questions” is not unique to Britain alone as some parliamentary democracies in different parts of the world also use a similar system in questioning the leaders of their government. A recent study on how parliamentary democracies hold their prime ministers to account carried out by Ruxandra Serban; a fellow in qualitative methodology at the LSE, showed that out of the 31 democracies surveyed, 26 operated a system whereby the prime minister is questioned in parliament. 16 democracies – including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and France have a collective procedure where the prime minister is questioned alongside other ministers.
The remaining ten, like Britain have a system whereby the prime minister undergoes a solo questioning session.
Nonetheless, the distinction of the British system lies mostly in its consistency. Unlike in Denmark or Sweden where the prime minister is questioned on a monthly basis, Britain’s system of questioning happens weekly.
Although this unique practice of publicly holding the leader of the government to account in parliament is mostly common among parliamentary democracies, Nigeria, whose 23-year democracy is modeled after the federalism of the United States of America and is plagued with a lack of accountability from its leaders, should adopt this convention. Recently, the mixed reactions that have rightly trailed the recent amendments to the 1999 constitution passed by both the federal legislative houses have showed the deep polarity between the negative sections of the amendments and its positives.
In all sincerity, one cannot but applaud the amendments that allow for more devolution of powers to state administrators while also ensuring financial and administrative autonomy for local governments but also wonder at the previous rejection of all five bills that seek to enhance the roles of women in public life.
Even so, of particular importance among these recent amendments is the alteration of Section 67 (1) of the provisions of the constitution, which mandates the president to attend a joint session of the National assembly on the first legislative day of the month of May in order to deliver a “state of the union address”.
This particular amendment is modeled on the state of the union address delivered yearly by the American president to congress in order to highlight some of the achievements of the incumbent administration while also outlining its strategic goals for the country’s future.
Aside from the fact that the state of the union address is one of the few instances, where all three branches of the US government, alongside military chiefs and the representatives of some US allies gather under one roof to listen to the president, this address is nothing more than another glorified speech similar to the Independence day address delivered on October 1st by the incumbent president in Nigeria.
One of the hallmarks of a true democracy is the ability to constantly hold our elected leaders accountable to their actions and the British system of questioning the prime minister in parliament offers a better platform in ensuring our president is on top of the topical issues affecting the country.
This view was equally shared in the United States by Senator John McCain; the republican candidate in the 2008 presidential elections who promised to implement a system similar to prime minister’s questions where the American president would be questioned in congress.
To further highlight the importance of prime minister’s questions in fostering accountability and intense political debate, former US president; George Bush Snr, when asked about it in an interview on C-SPAN; the American cable network said that: “I count my blessings for the fact I don’t have to go into that pit that John Major (former UK prime minister) stands in, nose-to-nose with the opposition, all yelling at each other”.
In addition, there is also a symbolic advantage to implementing a weekly “presidential question time” in our National assembly, where the president is questioned by Senators or members of the house.
For Boris Johnson, who was the captain of the debate team at Britain’s premier secondary school; Eton College and the president of the Oxford union at Oxford University, It could hardly be overreaching to assume that at that point in his life, he had not imagined his older self defending a fictional government in the future. After all, the politics and debates at the Oxford union are modeled after that of the House of Commons.
It is also worthy of mention that two former British prime ministers had also been former presidents of the Oxford union in their younger years like Johnson.
Consequently, a televised weekly session where the Nigerian president is grilled on the policies of his government and the state of the country amongst other things would draw more interest in political affairs from Nigeria’s teeming Youth population, as it would either showcase to the nation whether their elected leader is in touch with the problems afflicting them or not.
Not only would this eventually push political parties to present the best minds that would represent their ideologies during presidential elections, it would also motivate future presidents to thoroughly assess any of their policies before implementing them.
In this crucial time in our nation’s politics, the long-term benefits of these reforms for our democracy cannot be overemphasized enough.
This is why in future constitutional amendments, section 67(1) should be amended to include a weekly “presidential question time” either in the senate or the house of representatives rather than a yearly state of the union address which stands to be nothing more than another grandiose speech.
OLANREWAJU AJIDAGBA WRITES FROM UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, UNITED KINGDOM
