POS 103 ; ELEMENT OF GOVERNMENT

OBJECTIVES
In this course students will be exposed to understand of the meaning, and functions of
government. They will have an in-depth knowledge of the basic structures and organs of
government and also will be familiar with the levels and systems of government and how
they operate. Students of Political Science and all other cognate disciplines will be provided
with comprehensive knowledge of the nature and scope of the government of modern states.
Course Outline
1. Concept of Government
- Features/Characteristics
- Functions of government
2. Institutional make up of Government
- Executive, Legislative and Judiciary
3. Forms of Government
- Monarchy; Aristocracy; Theocracy; Oligarchy; Gerontocracy; Dictatorship;
Democracy
4. Law Making Process in the Parliament
5. Basic Principles of Government
- Rule of Law- principles and limitation
- Separation of power
- Check and Balances
- Representative government
- Political Participation
- Centralization of power
- Decentralization of Power
6. Political Administration System
- Unitary system of government
- Federal system of government
- Confederalism system
- Presidential system
- Parliamentary system
7. Instrumentalist of Political interaction
- Political parties
- Pressure groups
- Interest groups
MODULE 1 UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT
INTRODUCTION
This module will examine the meaning of Government, which is one the cardinal institutions of the
state. Furthermore, the module will explain the origin and necessity of Government as well as the
fundamental functions it performs. Finally, various tiers and forms at which Government exists and
operates shall be studied to understand the essence of government in the society. This module is made
up of five units, the framework upon which we would base our further explanations of the concept of
government.
MEANING AND FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT
INTRODUCTION
The agency through which the purpose and cardinal objectives of a state are achieved is called
government. The government whose organisation could be seen either through the territorial structure
or by functionality carries out the day-to-day activities of the state. Government is a creation of a state
and could be geographically structured at three-tier as the case in Nigeria, thus: federal, states, and
local government councils with distinct organ and other functionaries. You will learn more about the
meaning, functions, origin, necessity as well as tiers and forms of government this in this unit as we
progress.
Meaning of Government
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary offers three definitions of government:
(i) 'The group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.' (ii) 'A particular
system used for controlling country, state, etc.' (iii) 'The process or manner of controlling a country,
state, etc.'
Evident from the foregoing is the fact that the government can be defined by the people involved, the
system in place, or the process in use. Thus, the government is defined as the vehicle for the
governance of society, which is the establishment and enforcement of rules and provisioning of basic
services which society requires but which would otherwise not be available or might be in conflict
between individuals and the various subdivisions within society (Bealey, 1999). Similar to the
foregoing, Black's Law Dictionary posits that institutions of the government regulate the relationships
among members of a society and between the society and outsiders and that they have the authority to
make decisions for the society to meet goals and maintain order.
The government plays a fundamental role in the economic development process. Market rules and
operating procedures are set and enforced by the government. The government plays a role in the
economy through the provision of public goods that are collective in nature and through efforts to
counter market imperfections such as externalities or poor information. For example, the government
provides public infrastructure that services economic activities. It also provides public services to both
business and households. Again, the government decides what is best for the individuals and groups
and how to utilise available resources to provide the best living standard for the citizenry. Can you
imagine living in a society without transportation, water supply, road network and without other
social infrastructural facilities? How it would be like if nobody was charged with the responsibility to
make sure laws are made and respected or to provide a plan where buildings should go and keep our
environment clean and safe? We need the government to take care of many of these things.
Government operations are those activities involved in the running of a state to produce value for the
citizens. The significant feature of modern (liberal) government is a democracy, and two major
attributes of democracy found in most writings on liberal democracy are the principle of rule of law
and the theory of separation of powers.
Scholars have argued that the government can be explained and understood along three broad
interpretations. These include:
i) Government as a process of governing ii) Government as an institution of the state iii) Government
as a field of study
Government as a Process of Governing As a process of governing, the government refers to how a
particular state is being governed. It also means the entire processes, operations and activities that are
involved in the governing of a state. In the course of governing a state, the government is divided into
different organs and tiers, which include the legislature, judiciary and executive organs, and the
federal, state and local governments respectively. The legislative arm is responsible for lawmaking;
such laws must not be arbitrary but should be based on a critical assessment of the collection of
relevant information. The executive arm performs the activity of implementation of these laws made
by the legislature. The executive mobilises all the necessary machinery to ensure the implementation
of adequate policies and laws made by the legislature. More often than not, problems arise while
implementing government policies; such problems are resolved by the judiciary. The judiciary
performs a crucial role in explaining or interpreting the laws properly. It is therefore seen that both the
organs and tiers of government are all effectively involved in the effective running of the affairs of a
state. Hence, we can posit that government as an art or process of governing refers to the process
through which the legislature, executive and judicial organs of government variously carry out their
assigned functions and responsibilities at federal, state and local governments.
Government as an Institution of the State This refers to the mechanism that guides the control and
direction of a state. These are the institutions, Ministries, parastatals and Agencies (MDAs)of state
responsible for the administration of the state. The institutions of a state are broadly categorised into
formal and informal institutions. The formal institutions are the legislature, executive and judiciary;
while the informal institutions comprise of the pressure groups, political parties and trade unions. The
government in this context refers to the institution of a State because it is formed and established
forthe common good of the people who chose to come together and have a common destiny.
Government is therefore necessary as an institution of the state because it is through the government
that the will of the state, which is an abstract entity, is realised. Government transforms the
abstractness of the state into a concrete reality that can be seen and recognised. It is the government as
an institution that governs, and this entails regulating individual’s relationship and providing for the
fundamental human rights of the people as well as the protection of citizens from internal insecurity
and external aggression.
Government as a Field of Study As a field of study, the government is seen as a branch of human
endeavour that studies agencies, institutions and the forces that operate in the state. It is studied as
Government in post-primary schools, and Political Science or Politics in higher institutions.
Government as an academic field of study also has sub-disciplines or fields such as Political Theory,
Political Economy, Comparative Government, International Relations, Public Administration, Public
Policy, Local Government Studies, among others. As a field of study, Government imbues an
individual with logical reasoning. It prepares citizens for active and meaningful participation in the art
of governing. More fundamentally, it not only enlightens citizen of their fundamental human rights
and obligations but also creates a deep sense of national consciousness, cohesion and patriotism in
them.
State and Government Compared
A state is a geographical entity made up of people who have or believe they have the followings in
common: culture, language, history, tradition, and religion in a fixed territory(boundary). The term
state can be used to mean a country. A state is an independent and sovereign entity with a system of
law and an organised government, which has certain administrative tasks to be carried out for its
proper functioning. The government carries out these administrative tasks. It has the right to exercise
power over the territory and the people. The state is the territory in which the government can practice
its authority. A state is like an organisation and the government is like the management team. A state
has the following characteristics: sovereignty; population; territory and government, which
distinguish it from any other union or association.
Government, on the other hand, is a political or the ruling administrative means that serves as the
agent or machinery through which the purpose or goals for which the state or country is established
are achieved. However, while state exists in perpetuity except in the event of its collapses,
governments the world over change through elections or by other means. Another difference is that
while government functionariesare visible, the state exists in a ‘spiritual realm’, you only hear
references made to the state but you cannot see the entity called the state physically even though the
day to day activities of the government are done in her name. Below is the summary of important
distinctions between the state and government.
(i) The state has four basic elements or characteristics, viz: population; territory; government and
sovereignty. Government is a narrow concept and it is an element or characteristic of the state. (ii)
The state is regarded as an organic concept, which the government is a part thereof. (iii) The state is
more or less permanent and continues from time immemorial. But the government is temporary. It
changes frequently. A government may come and go, but the State continues. forever. (iv) It is a
known fact that citizens are members of the state in entirety but not all of them are members of the
government. The government consists of only a few selected citizens. The organs of the government
consist of only a few elected or selected citizens. (v) The state possesses sovereignty. Its authority is
absolute and unlimited. Any other institution cannot take its power away. Government possesses no
sovereignty, no original authority, but only derivative powers delegated by the state through its
constitution. Powers of government are delegated and limited. Government safeguards the sovereignty
of the state. (vi) The state is an abstract concept whereas government is a concrete one. Nobody sees
the state and the state never acts. The government is a physical manifestation and it acts for the state.
For instance, while Nigeria is the state, Buhari’s administration is the government of the Nigerian
state. (vii) All states are identical in character and nature. Whether big or small, the characteristics of
the State do not change. But governments are of different types and they may vary from state to state.
The government may be based on democracy, monarchy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Various political
scientists have given different classifications of government. (viii) Lastly, the citizens have a right to
go against the government and not against the state. The state only acts through the government and
the government may make mistakes and may be sanctioned for it but not the state. The state can do no
wrong or make mistake, therefore, the citizens only have rights to go against the government and not
the state.
Functions of Government
Government is a sufficient condition for peaceful and prosperous existence. Thus, functions of
government can simply be outline as follows: defence and security functions; regulation of social life;
maintenance of unity in society; provision of infrastructures, political, economic and social functions;
international relations. To understand the basis for the fore-going functions, it is pertinent to explain
the ‘state of nature’, the hypothetical condition of humanity before the evolution of modern states, and
the consequent ‘Social Contract’, as articulated by Thomas Hobbes. In his book, Leviathan (1651,
Ch.13), Hobbes describes man as selfish, pursuing his own interest at the expense of others in a
condition he hypothetically explains as “kill whom you can and take away what you can and from this
spring all possibilities of internecine warfare.” He concludes, “the state of nature is the ill, unhappy
and intolerable condition of life. The life of man is solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short.” It is
againstthe background of the above scenario that there is the need for a central authority called
“government” to be saddled with the primary responsibility of maintaining law and order in order to
ensure peace and tranquillity in the society.
However, because of certain changes in the development of society in modern times – socio-cultural,
technological advancements, political changes etc., as well as the type of political system, the
functions of government now extend beyond protection and security of lives and properties into
broader areas. These include:
(i) Interpersonal and intergroup relationship. This is necessary to maintain order and stability, (ii)
Government is expected to mobilize all the human and material resources within and even outside its
confiners (territories) for the promotion of the welfare of the citizens. (iii) Government is expected not
only to mobilise resource; it also should distribute them fairly to its members. (iv) All these activities
involve greater regulation of the activities and relationships of people.
By and large, in democratic nations, the roles, powers and responsibilities of the government are set
out in the constitution of such states.
The state and government are like semen’s twins because without a State, there cannot be a
government and a government cannot operate except on the authority of the State. The State has set
objectives, which can only be accomplished through the machinery of the government that holds
power in trust for the people based on the authority of the State.
The evolution theories of State make the need for a government imperative in human society for
without government humanity may not live in peace and harmony, which are the important elements
for development and growth. The relationship between the State and government is that of a principal
and an agent.
Major Theories of the Origin of Government
Evolutionary Theory The evolutionary theory posits that government originates from a family or clan-
bound structure. This explains the formation of the world's first political structures. These earliest and
very loosely formed governments were the result of a shift from hunter-gatherer societies (otherwise
called the wandering band) to more settled agricultural societies. As families joined to form clans and
clans joined to form villages, the need for leaders and a central organisational structure developed.
These leaders helped determine how to address unfamiliar issues, such as water rights for crop
irrigation and the distribution of other resources. They also provided an increased sense of safety and
security for the society. In many early societies, these first states developed monarchies, with rule
based on membership in a ruling family. In modern times, some governments continue to be led by a
succession of members from the same family. For example, in the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, the king
has been descended from the Āl Saʿūd family since 1744.
Force Theory The force theory espouses the idea that government originates from taking control of
the state by force and is often found in a dictatorship— a type of government characterised by one-
person or one-party authoritarian rule. Historically, this has been achieved in some cases through
forcible invasion or occupation when a more dominant people or state takes control of the political
system of a less powerful people or state, imposing its governmental system on that group. New
governments can also be formed by force during revolutions or coups within a country. A coup is the
overthrow of an established government, and the resulting leader or dictator is most often a military
figure. An example of the force theory occurred in Cuba in 1959 when revolutionary Fidel Castro and
a small force of guerrilla soldiers defeated the national army and took control of the government.
Divine Right Theory For the divine right theory, government originates with power vested in an
individual by God or gods. Generally, monarchs lead governments of this type. This theory was
followed in ancient times, including by the ancient Egyptians and Maya. The idea of divine right
experienced a resurgence in western Europe in the 16th to the 18th centuries, when King James I of
England, several French monarchs, and other rulers asserted that their authority came directly from
God—and thus could not be challenged. Russian czars, such as Peter the Great, believed their
autocratic rule was God-given, and they used their power to gain territory, wage war, and impose
taxation on their subjects.
Social Contract Theory The social contract theory of government was the result of centuries of
frustration with the unchecked power of monarchs. Under this theory, the government is a kind of
contract in which those in power have responsibilities toward those they govern and the governed
respect the power of the governing individuals. There are various versions of the social contract
theory, ranging from an emphasis on maintaining a peaceful social order to a focus on using
individual free will to determine
what is best for the public good, or that which benefits all people in a society. Although the social
contract theory has numerous variations, at its core is the idea that government is an agreement
between those who govern and those who are governed. This theory was developed in the 17th and
18th centuries by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. The
founders of the United States drew heavily on social contract theory in the construction of both the
Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Necessity of Government
The idea of government, its origin and necessity has had both bourgeois and revolutionary
approaches. However, bourgeois writings and discourses on government have pre-dominated political
science literature in particular and social science literature in general. Thus, political thinkers and
writers have varied views on the idea and purpose of government in society. Aristotle expressed the
view that government exist for man in society and it exists for the sake of the best life. John Locke
maintains that the purpose of the government is the preservation of man’s lives, liberties and property.
Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations (1976) sees the purpose of government in terms of threefold
duties, namely, (i) protection of the society from foreign aggression; (ii) establishment of an exact
administration of justice to every member of the society; (iii) establishment of certain public works
and certain public institution for the general welfare of the people.
According to Herbert Spencer, the government exists to prevent an individual from infringing the
rights of another. Government is, therefore “a joint-stock protection company for mutual assurance”.
To the utilitarian school, of which Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill the well-known exponents,
the primary purpose of government is to ensure the greatest happiness of the greatest number of
people. Harold Laski’s view which represents the modern view on the purposes of government cannot
be said to be fundamentally different from the views the state as an “organization or enabling the mass
of men to realise social good on the largest possible scale”. Laski sees the primary purpose of the state
as the maintenance of citizen’s inalienable rights. Again, that government exists to control the levels
at which men are to live as men to protect the interests of men as citizens.
From the above, man generally accept government (following the bourgeois logic) as a necessary, if
not sufficient condition, for peaceful and prosperous existence, for the interest of all in society. It is in
this context that government is defined as the highest institution of every state, an impartial arbiter
with a central authority which claims allegiance from all members of the state, capable of imposing its
will on all members of the state if need be by means of force, and which is ready to protect the lives
and properties of all members within its confines.
FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
In any state, the rights and liberties of the citizens, as well as the quality of governance, are affected
by the form of government in practice. These forms of government such as aristocracy, monarchy,
theocracy, gerontocracy, plutocracy, oligarchy, dictatorship and democracy are variously adopted and
adapted by states in the contemporary international system. Therefore, an attempt will be made in this
unit to provide the reader with an insight into the aforementioned forms of government.
Monarchy
This is the oldest type of government in which a King or Queen exercise the ruling powers of the
State. In an absolute monarchy, the King or Queen has unlimited powers to rule the country and
his/her authority is not subject to any legal limitations and cannot be challenged becausehe/she is
sovereign and it is believed that he/she does no wrong, especially when it is primogenial. Perhaps to
emphasise the powerful nature the position of a monarch, King James I of England in his book The
Trew Law of Free Monarchies (1603) has this to say:
Even if the King is wicked, it means God has sent him as a punishment for people’s sins, and it is
unlawful to shake off the burden that God has laid upon them. Patience, earnest prayer and
amendment of their lives are the only lawful means to move God to relieve them of that heavy curse!
(Appadorai, A.,1975, p.230)
However, in a constitutional monarchy, the King or Queen reigns but does not rule. The monarch has
his/her powers regulated by the constitution; he/she is a titular Head of State and simply performs
ceremonial functions while a Prime Minister who is appointed amongst the elected Parliament,
exercises effective powers of the State as the head of government. This is the practice in B ritain and
most Commonwealth Nations. It was practised in Nigeria’s First Republic (1960 - 1966).
Merits
● As the oldest form of government, monarchy is seen as the most stable since the succession is by
hereditary and once the successor attains the position, he/she cannot be removed from office by
impeachment or a vote of no confidence. The system thus provides for less rancour and animosity in
the decision-making process since the final say belongs to the monarch who is supreme.
● The policy formulation and implementation are easier and quicker under a monarchy than in any
other systems of government. Hence, the state is saved from the trouble of time-wasting on debates
and lengthy discussions on public issues.
● With the longevity of the position of a monarch, there is consistency and continuity on both
domestic and foreign policies that make for sustainable development.
Demerits
● Monarchical system of government is undemocratic in nature and in practice. The process of
ascension to the office is not through popular elections or any democratic norms other than by ‘divine
right’ as the only qualification, which cannot be challenged by anybody. Under this system, there are
no citizens but subjects of the monarch who has no right to any freedom except as granted by the
monarch.
● Monarchs usually become despots and tyrants because the system does not accommodate the
doctrine of checks and balances. This explains why King Charles I of England was beheaded in a
revolution led by Oliver Cromwell in1625
. ● Absolute monarchy is associated with inefficiency, corruption, nepotism, and high-handedness.
Aristocracy
This is a form of government in which a few wealthy, gifted or the noble rule. Rousseau literally
describes aristocracy as ‘government by the best citizens’ (Appadorai, 1975 p.134). In an aristocratic
government, a few persons distinguished by their superiority, ability and merit exercises of power.
The followings are some of the distinctions of aristocracy:
● Circumstances of birth (aristocratic family)
● Culture and education (aristocracy of intellectuals)
● Military prowess or talent
● Property or wealth (aristocracy of landowners)
● Charismatic potentialities ● Religious position
Merits
● Aristocratic government is conservative, which is an element necessary for political stability and
socio-economic development. Aristocracy is averse to irrational political experimentation but rather
advance slowly but steadily.
● Aristocrats are moderates for the sake of their security as they are always aware that the citizens are
greater in number, therefore, excessive use of power may lead to insurgence and instability in the
polity.
● Finally, aristocracy gives premium to merit and quality because political power is given to people
who deserve it because they are chosen few by virtue of their blood, wisdom, wealth, physical
strength and skill.
Demerits
● Aristocratic governments degenerate quickly into oligarchy and dictatorship.
● It is anti-democracy because it does not allow for mass participation by the people in the decision-
making process of their affairs.
● The ruling class often treats the lower class in the society with disdain because the system is anti-
democratic.
Theocracy
This is a form of government in which a religious or spiritual leader is the Head of State or Head of
Government or both combined. According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, ‘it is a system in
which a state is understood as governed by immediate divine guidance especially a state ruled by
clergy, or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.’
A theocracy has the administrative hierarchy of the government, which is identical with the
administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative
hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy. This system of government is clearly different from
other secular forms of government that have a state religion or are merely influenced by theological or
moral concepts. An example of a Theocratic government is that of the Vatican City in Rome where
the Pope is both the Head of State and Head of government. The system has similar characteristic
with monarchy except that the source of authority of a theocrat is not by hereditary successions like
that of the King or Queen. Another example of theocracy was Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini.
Oligarchy
This is a form of government in which power structure effectively rests with a small number of
people, distinguished by such attributes as royalty, wealth, family ties, corporate and military control,
among others. Throughout history, most oligarchies have been tyrannical, relying on public servitude
to exist, although others have been relatively benign. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a
synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, but oligarchy is not always a rule
by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group, and do not have to be connected by
bloodlines as in a monarchy. Some city-states from ancient Greece were oligarchies.
Iron Law of Oligarchy The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German
Sociologist, Robert Michels in his book, Political Parties (1911). Michels posited that all forms of
organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually
develop into oligarchies. Following are the reasons for this process:
● The indispensability of leadership.
● The tendency of all groups, including the organisation leadership, to defend their interests.
● The passivity of the led individuals, more often than not taking the form of actual gratitude towards
the leaders.
He concluded that formal organisation of bureaucracies inevitably leads to oligarchy, under which
organisations originally idealistic and democratic eventually become dominated by a small, self-
serving clique who pervert the positions of power and responsibility. This can occur in large
organisations because it becomes physically impossible for everyone to get together every time a
decision has to be made. According to Mitchel, ‘who says organization, says oligarchy’ (Michels
1911, p. 401). Imagine the trouble and rowdiness it would create, bringing all the ordinary
shareholders of a reputable commercial bank e.g. United Bank Africa (UBA), or a bottling company
(Coca-Cola) etc. together for the day-to-day running of the company. Therefore, a small group is
given the responsibility of making such decisions.
Gerontocracy
This is a form of government in which a polity is ruled by leaders who are regarded as senior citizens
because they are significantly older than most of the adult population. Often the political structure is
such that political power within the ruling class accumulates with age. Those holding the most
powerful positions may not be occupying formal leadership positions, but they often dominate those
who are. An example of this was the pre-colonial Ibadan confederacy where the position of the leader
was (and still is) never open for contest. Such a system of government is also common in communist
states where the length of one's service to the party is held to be the main criteria for leadership. The
greatest advantage of the form of government is that it provides for stability, which is seen as its
strength and could be better for countries that teach principles that do not vary over time. However,
gerontocracy may not provide effective administration to cope with rapid changes that characterise
modern states because of antiquated ideas and decreased faculties associated with old age.
Plutocracy
Plutocracy is a system of government in which the wealthy in the society have a great influence on the
political process. The wealthy minority exerts influence over the political arena via many methods.
Most western democracies permit a partisan organisation to raise funds for politicians, and political
parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals either directly or through
corporations or advocacy groups. These donations may be part of a patronage system, in which major
contributors and fund-raisers are rewarded with high-ranking government appointments. In some
instances, extremely wealthy individuals have financed their own political campaigns. Many
corporations and business interest groups pay lobbyists to maintain constant contact with elected
officials and press them for favourable legislation. Owners of mass media outlets, and the
advertisement buyers, which financially support them, can shape public perception of political issues
by controlling the information available to the population and how it is presented.
Dictatorship
Dictatorship is a form of government where one person or political party has the power to do
whatever they want. The ruler is called a dictator. In a dictatorship, the individual’s rights are,
generally speaking, suppressed. In this form of government, the power rests entirely on the person or
group of people and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. This system of government became
popular shortly after the First World War (WWI) when its manifestation became noticeable in Turkey
under Kamal Ataturk and in Russia under Joseph Stalin, among others. An extreme form of
dictatorship is called fascism, which is a far-right, authoritarian ultra-nationalism, characterized by
dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the
economy. Fascism came to prominence in early 20th-century in Italy under Benito Mussolini, in
Germany under Adolf Hitler, and in Spain under General Francisco. A dictator is usually not elected
or appointed by the people but emerges in a particular circumstance, and once he gets to office, he sits
tight until he dies in office or he is forced to step down. A dictator has enormous power and he brooks
no opposition to his authority. He gives an ideological colouration to the character of his autocratic
position. Dictatorship is anti-democracy as the powers of the government are not regulated by the
constitution; therefore, the government is not accountable to the people. Three different types of
dictatorship are autocracy, authoritarian oligarchy, and absolute democracy. Late General Sani
Abacha of Nigeria and Field Marshall Dada Idi Amin of Uganda are good examples of modern
dictators in Africa.
Democracy
Democracy has generally and simplistically defined as the government of the people, for the people
and by the people; implying a situation in government where the will of the majority in the society
prevails. The concept has its origin far back to the development of Greek city-state where all members
of the society often gathered together to take decisions of issues affecting the society by physical
presence. From its very origins in the Greek city-state, it has therefore had a single, simple
connotation: “popular power actualised through political structures that are based on mass
participation and popular participation, and undergirded by such cardinal norms as liberty, equality
and unity” (Ibeanu, 1998, p. 1). For our purpose, democracy may be defined as form of government
where the society acquires and enjoys all attributes of a democratic form of rule manifested in an
increase in the quantity and quality of people’s right and freedom, particularly the right to participate
in taking decisions that govern their lives.
The practise of democracy has changed with the development of society, especially with the evolution
of modern state and civil society. Consequently, two kinds of democracy can be identified – direct
and indirect democracy. Direct democracy, belonging to the ancient Greek period, is where the
decisions relating to government policies, laws and other issues, are taken by the people, while the
indirect democracy, which belongs to the modern state system, is when the people choose their
representatives to take decisions relating to government policies, laws and other issues on their behalf.
Like other concepts in political science, Liberal or Western view on the nature, form and dimensions
of democracy has predominated social science literature. The result is that the liberal view of
democracy or more specifically liberal democracy was (and is) the general view of democracy.
However, one could still talk of institutionalisation of democracy outside multpartism. This is true
because the existence of so many parties within a particular society does not correspond or mean the
existence of democracy in the society. Consequently, democracy as a form of government may be
classified into two broad categories in modern times: western liberal or capitalist democracy and
socialist democracy. Examples of capitalist democracies include USA, Britain, France, Germany,
Japan, Nigeria, South Africa etc., while socialist democracies include; former Soviet Union (Russia),
China, Cuba, Tanzania, former Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia etc.
Conditions for Effective Operation of Democracy For any society to be regarded as democratic,
the following elements must not only feature in the settings but must be cultivated by the
people:

- Regular and Periodic Multi-Party Elections base on Equality of Electors Free, fair and
credible elections conducted periodically, say, every three or four years in which all adults of
voting age not only participate to elect their leaders, but also have freedom of choice in doing
so, and the result of such election should reflect the wishes of the people.
- An Independent Judiciary The courts must not only be free from the control of the executive
or any other arm of government but the judicial officers must be above board in the
dispensation of justice.
- A Free Press The press and mass media should be free to disseminate information to the
public without fear of being arrested or molested by the authority. The media practitioners
should be free to have access to information to inform the members of the public about
government policies and also give the government a feedback on the feelings and aspirations
of the people.
- A Virile Civil Society A virile civil society composed of independent association and groups
capable of putting those who exercise political power under check is required for the effective
operation of democracy.
Merits of Democracy
● It allows the people to choose their leaders and to them change periodically, through the ballot box.
● Democracy gives the people a sense of belonging and satisfaction because they know that the
power to elect and remove their leaders belongs to them. Even if the leadership and the governance
are bad, they would rather exercise patience until the election period to effect a change.
● Democracy is unique because ideally it recognises and respects the fundamental human rights of the
citizens, and as well as the decision of courts on any issue.
Demerits of Democracy
● It breeds mediocrity because, in democratic contests, it is not always the ‘best’ among the
candidates that win either the primary or general elections to represent the people.
● Another drawback of democracy is the attendant high cost of governance. It requires a huge
amount of national income to maintain the national and state assemblies and the executives with the
retinue of personal assistants. Enormous wealth is needed for elections and electioneering campaigns
periodically, which could have been avoided under a non-democratic government.
● Democracy is also criticised because it encourages the slow progress of development. If leadership
changes hands too often through elections, the tendency is that the new leadership may abandon the
on-going policies and programmes to start afresh to impress the electorates. It also takes a lot of time
and resources to make a decision in a democracy because issues are to be well articulated and widely
debated before taking a popular decision.
(i) Examine the merits and demerits of monarchy as a form of government.
(ii) Discuss gerontocracy as a form of government, explaining its advantages and disadvantages.
(iii) Explain this statement fully “who says organization says oligarchy.”
(iv) Identify and explain the attributes of a dictatorial government.
(v) Critically assess democracy as a popular form of government.
BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATIONS OF GOVERNMENT
When a term is used to describe a State or her agent (government) in comparison with others, it
simply refers to certain features and characteristics they either have in common or differences. It is a
terminology used by the political scientist concerning certain selected items from tradition, customs,
institutions and the system of laws guiding the administrative system of a society or organisation. A
government reflects one of the institutional forms depending on the specific functions the government
and the governed play in the system. This unit examines the classification of governments by political
philosophers and factors that determine the types of government. It also x-rays institutional
differentiation of government.
Aristotle In ancient time, Aristotle classified government based on two principles viz: the number of
persons in whose hands the authority of the state is vested and the purpose of the state. He postulates
that the government is of two types – normal and the perverted forms of government. He further
explains the former as one when the ultimate aim of the government is the welfare of the people while
the perverted form is one where the government machinery are used in promoting personal or group
interest of the functionaries or a select few in the society. The real purpose of Aristotle’s classification
is to justify the excellence of a particular form of rule – mixed government - called ‘polity’. As
regards the number of persons holding power, he says that the ruling power may reside in the hands of
one, a few, or many persons while the nature of the exercise of their authority may be either good or
bad. He makes use of the grounds of quality and quantity of the ruling persons that eventually enables
him to justify ‘polity’ as the best form of an attainable or a practicable government (Johari, 2009,
2019).
Thomas Hobbes Hobbes was aware of other forms of government such as tyranny, oligarchy and
anarchy but he refused to consider them like other forms of government. According to him, those who
were discontented under monarchy called it tyranny; those who were displeased with aristocracy
called it oligarchy; and those who nursed some grudges against democracy called it anarchy (see
Leviathan, p. 96-7).
John Locke John Locke substantially follows Hobbes in his classification, with some differences of
detail, he says, ‘according as the power of making laws is placed, such is the form of the
commonwealth’. If the majority, in whom the whole power of the community is placed at the dawn of
civil society, retains the legislative power in their own hands and executes those laws by officers of
their own appointing, the form of the government is a perfect democracy. If they put the power of
making laws into the hands of a few select men and their heirs or successors, then it is an oligarchy
but if into the hands of one man, then, it is a monarchy either hereditary or elective.
Baron de Montesquieu Montesquieu, a French political philosopher, held that states are of three
types, the republican, the monarchic and the despotic. If all or part of the people has the sovereign
power, the state is a republic, a democratic or an aristocratic one. A monarchy is the rule of a single
person according to law; a despotism, the rule of a single person arbitrarily. Montesquieu indicates the
various principles animating the various forms of government, the sustaining and driving powers
behind them. In a democracy, the citizens’ principle of a republic takes the shape of the love of
country and desire for equality. That the members of a ruling class will be moderate towards the
people, maintain equality among themselves and enforce the laws against persons of rank - this is the
virtue of an aristocracy. The mainspring of the monarchy is honour: the confidence or conceit of the
individual and of the governing classes concerning their own special importance, confidence that
spurs men to accomplish things quite as much as virtue itself. Despotism requires neither virtue nor
honour, but fear that suppresses both courage and ambition among subjects. States or governments
could be classified according to the type of political system in the country, concerning who exercises
the effective or nominal political powers.
Factors that Determine Types of Government
Political scientists have created numerous typologies for classifying political systems and forms of
government. Nonetheless, there is no consensus on one best or the ideal method because the one
chosen depends on the aspect of politics that interests the people most (Leeds, 1981). Some of the
factors are as follow:
(i) Modernity Countries of the world differ from one another in terms of per capita income, level of
education, technological development, industrialisation, urbanisation and availability of infrastructural
facilities. However, such factors tend to be highly inter-correlated because a country lacking in one
respect is most likely to be less developed in other respects.
(ii) Location of Authority Under a federal system, for instance, the powers for making important
decisions are shared between the central, the component units and local authorities and in most cases,
such is explained by the constitution. In a unitary system, the right to make decisions on all political
matters rests with the national government while the component units exist at the mercy of the central
authority.
(iii) Integration This refers to the extent to which the state’s apparatus is linked with the activities of
individuals and groups in society. In some cases, the exercise of state powers is total while in some
other climes, it is liberal or egalitarian. At one end of the spectrum is anarchism or belief in limited or
no government, which is utopian but on the other edge is a laissez-faire rule in which the government
limits itself to limited obligatory functions that are considered necessary for the survival of the state.
The next stage involves the ‘mixed economy’ where the government undertakes extensive political
and economic functions under the influence of state socialism. At the far end of the spectrum is
totalitarianism.
Institutional Differentiation of Government
Ordinarily, it appears easy to identify a form of government through institutions. For example, many
people would infer that the United States of America is a federal republic while the defunct Soviet
Union was a totalitarian state. However, defining a form of government is especially problematic
when trying to identify those elements that are peculiar to that form. There is a world of difference
between the ability to identify a form of government and identifying the necessary characteristics of
that form of government. For example, in trying to identify the essential characteristics of a
democracy, one might say "elections", “party system”, “judicial independence”, etc. However, it may
be noted that the authorities in both the former Soviet Union of the United States of America lay
claims to some of these elements because citizens voted for candidates to public offices in their
respective states. The problem with such a comparison is that most people are not likely to accept it
because it does not conform to their sense of reality. Since most people are not going to accept an
evaluation that makes the former Soviet Union as democratic as the United States, the usefulness of
the concept is undermined. Therefore, in Political Science, it has long been a goal to create a typology
or nomenclature of polities, as typologies of political systems are not obvious, especially in the
comparative politics and international relations (Lewellen, 2003). One approach is to elaborate on the
nature of the characteristics found within each regime. In the example of the United States and the
Soviet Union, both did conduct elections, and yet one important difference between these two regimes
is that the USSR had a single-party system, with all other parties being outlawed. In contrast, the
United States effectively has a bipartisan system with political parties being regulated, but not
forbidden.
In addition, most Westminster democracies such as the United Kingdom or countries in the
Commonwealth of Nations usually have at least three major parties. A system generally seen as a
representative democracy (for instance Canada, India and the United States) may also include
measures providing for a degree of direct democracy in the form of referenda and for deliberative
democracy in the form of the extensive processes required for a constitutional amendment. Another
complication is that a huge number of political systems originate as socio-economic movements and
are then carried into governments by specific parties naming themselves after those movements.
Experience with those movements in power, and the strong ties they may have to particular forms of
government, can cause them to be considered as forms of government in themselves.

ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT
Government is one of the cardinal institutions of the state. There is no state without a government,
which provides the basic needs of the people. Modern governments operate on three pillars called
organs (or branches or arms), which work concurrently and separately to achieve the purpose of
government. This module, which is sub-divided into five units, will examine the basic features and
functions of the three organs of government.
LEGISLATURE
The legislature is perhaps the most important organ of government in the sense that no society can
exist without law. It is also believed that an elected legislature is a major distinguishing feature
between a democratic and a military government since all forms of government do lawmaking. This
unit examines the place and role of the legislature as a major institution of government. It also
discusses the different types of legislature and the reasons why some countries prefer one to the other.
Origin of the Legislature
As the earliest organ of government, the history of the legislature can be traced to the classical days of
the Greece and the Roman Empire. Both countries had legislative bodies. Indeed, the idea of the
senate as the upper house had its origin in Rome. The Roman’s Senate was exclusively composed of
the leading aristocrats in the country and thus, members were proudly referred to as the “Fathers of
Rome”. The term senate has since struck and many have copied it into their constitutional framework,
as the upper house. The equivalent of the senate in the British system is the House of Lords, which is
the oldest second chamber in the modern world, and the largest.
To capture the interest of the vast majority of the citizenry, Rome also created the popular assemblies.
This is the precursor of the modern-day representative legislature, which has increasingly assumed
more prominence since it conforms to the democratic principle of popular sovereignty or the mandate
theory of representation. The struggle between the then pliant or rubber-stamp parliament and the
absolute monarchy, popularly known as the Puritan “Revolt” which later culminated in what is today
known in Britain as the concept of parliamentary supremacy is a major event in the evolution of
today’s legislature. It was meant to underscore the fact that the legislature should occupy a pre-
eminent position in its relationship with the executive. Since then, other countries have accepted the
legislative institution as the bedrock of democracy.
Types of the Legislature
There are two types of the legislature: the unicameral and the bicameral legislatures.
Unicameral Legislature A unicameral legislature refers to a legislature which consists of one chamber
or house. Countries with unicameral governments include Armenia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Sweden,
among others. Unicameral systems became more popular during the 20th century and some countries,
including Greece, New Zealand, and Peru, switched from a bicameral to a unicameral system.
Merits of Unicameral Legislature
● A Unicameral legislature is less expensive to run. The salaries and allowances that would have been
paid to the members of the second chamber can be easily spent on other facilities and infrastructures.
● The passage of bill can also be done without delays that are associated with another round of
scrutiny in the second chamber. This has the advantage of making government business easier, less
cumbersome as well as making the response of the government to challenges quicker, especially in
situations of emergency.
● In a unicameral legislature, the state is spared of the internal rivalry and conflict that are associated
with a bicameral structure where the two houses often disagree on supremacy claims. This was
witnessed in Nigeria when the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Representatives on
Constitutional Amendments openly disagreed over which of the two houses would produce the
chairman.
Demerits of Unicameral Legislature
● It is possible in a unicameral legislature for hasty laws to be passed since the opportunity of a
second look by the other chamber is not available.
● Since the second chamber is usually composed of mature, seasoned and distinguished citizens in a
country, a country operating a unicameral legislature is denied the benefit of wisdom, experience and
partisan detachment that are usually associated with people who had previously served the country in
many capacities in the past, and who see service at the upper chamber as a unique recognition of their
abilities and a call to higher national service.
● A unicameral structure is not suitable for large and heterogeneous federal states like the United
States of America and Nigeria, where the second chamber is usually designed to allay the fears of the
minorities and promote their interests.
Bicameral Legislature
A bicameral legislature is a reference to a government with two legislative houses or chambers.
Countries with the bicameral legislature
are: the United States (U.S.), Britain, Nigeria etc. In Nigeria, the two legislative houses are: the Senate
and the House of Representatives. The Senate consists of 107 senators elected based on three Senators
to represent each of the country’s thirty-six states and one senator to represent Abuja, the Federal
Capital Territory. There are also 360 members in the nation’s House of Representatives elected based
on population, like its equivalent in the U.S.A. The equal representation in the U.S. and Nigerian
Senate seeks to balance bigness and smallness, majority rule and majority rules, centripetal and
centrifugal forces that are typical of most federal systems. The two legislative houses of the British
Parliament are the Upper House (the House of Lords), which has about 900 members, and Lower
House (the House of Commons), which is composed of 650 elected members.
Merits of a Bicameral Legislature
● The bicameral legislature has the advantage of wider representation, including those of minorities
and special interests. It enables the countries operating it to cope with, and manage the pull of
centrifugal forces.
● The second chamber can also help in checking hasty legislation since bills emanating from the first
chamber can always go to the second for fresh considerations.
● Bicameralism can also guard against the potential despotism of a single chamber. A second
chamber, therefore, serves as a guarantee of liberty and safeguard against legislative tyranny of a
single house.
Demerits of Bicameral Legislature
● A two-chamber legislature is very expensive to operate. Financial outlay.
● The second chamber is a duplication of effort, and a waste of material, financial and human
resources.
● The establishment of two legislative houses can also create conditions for avoidable conflict
between the two chambers. This conflict usually emanates during the passage of bills, and which
under the law must involve the two houses.
● It is also possible in countries where membership of the second chamber is not by election for the
executive to convert it to an avenue for political patronage. This was the case in Nigeria in the First
Republic.
3.3 Functions of the Legislature
Basically, the legislature performs the following functions:
Law-Making The primary function of the legislature is to make laws for the good and well-being of
the people as well as for the order and security of the state. Such laws are made in accordance with the
state’s constitution and in line with the standing laws and procedure that the assembly has stipulated.
Representative Function Legislature as a body composed of elected representatives of the people.
Individual members of the legislature in a democracy are elected to represent their constituencies.
They are thus expected to visit and consult their constituencies regularly to feel their pulse for better
representation.
Deliberative Function Essentially, the legislature is an arena for keen deliberations; and for this
reason, it has been correctly described as a deliberative body. It deliberates on a wide range of issues
bordering on welfare, economy, security, among others.
Approval of Annual Budgets In most countries, the legislature is always known to possess what is
called the power of the purse. This implies that the executive cannot legally make any spending
without the approval of the legislature. For this reason, the law requires the executive to lay before the
legislature its annual spending proposals and its sectoral break down for consideration, vetting and
possible approval. It is through this power that the legislature, on behalf of the electorate, can hold the
government and its officials accountable either for misuse of public funds.
Confirmation of Nominations made by the Executive Under the constitution, the executive can
only make nominations to major government positions as ministers, judges and ambassadors. Until
these nominees are screened and confirmed by the legislature they remain only designates into
positions. They can be deemed to have been validly appointed only after the approval of the
legislature.
Oversight Functions It is also the responsibility of the legislature (usually through a standing
committee) to conduct investigations into the activities of government ministries, departments and
agencies to overseeing, monitor and if need be, scrutinize the accounts and documents of government
agencies in relation to the enabling legislation. A standing committee can also organize public
hearings or summon government officials to clarify certain issues or defend decisions already made,
or proposals under consideration by the agency concerned.
Impeachment of the Executive The legislature also reserves the power to invoke the extreme step of
censoring and impeaching the President or vice-president in a presidential system or forcing the
resignation of a Prime Minister and the government he presides over if the parliament passes a vote of
no confidence on it. In the United States, President Richard Nixon resigned from office on August 9,
1974, to escape his impeachment the process, which had already commenced in the congress. At the
state level, the House of Assembly can also remove a Governor or Deputy Governor from office.
Ratification of Treaties/Agreements The constitution of most countries stipulates that for a treaty or
agreement between one country and another to have a full force of the law, and have a binding effect
on the peoples of both countries, it must be ratified by the legislature.
Constitutional Amendments Another important function of the legislature is the power to amend the
nation’s constitution. It may modify sections of the constitution or replace it in its entirety. In a
federal system, this power is shared between the inclusive government and the government of the
component states. Under the Nigerian constitution, a bill for the amendment of the constitution must
receive the support of two-thirds of members of both houses of the National assembly as well as 24
out of the 36 of the states in the country. Without meeting these stringent requirements, the bill cannot
receive presidential assent.
Importance of the Legislature
From what we have discussed so far, it is obvious that the legislature is a very important organ of
government. Indeed, in any reference to democratic governance, whether parliamentary or
presidential, the organ that captures the mind of many citizens as a symbol of democracy is the
legislature. The Legislative assembly is the place where the public sees democracy in action, in form
of debates and consideration of motions and passage of resolutions and bills. Indeed, the closest
politician to the voter is the representative of his constituency in the legislature, like the councillor in
a local government council.

THE LAW-MAKING PROCESS

Law, as the overt expression of the general will of the society, is significant for the peace, order and
good governance of any society. But laws must be made first before they can be enforced, or their
principles form the basis of interpretation. Law-making is cumbersome and procedural. Thus, law-
making is the most important function of the legislature since its success or failure is measured by the
numbers and types of bills it passed, motions it moved and resolutions it adopted. To be effective,
every legislative assembly should have established procedure for the orderly conduct of its
proceedings. The procedures are usually derived from the standing rules/Orders, and rulings by the
presiding officer and guided by the relevant constitutional provisions. This unit, therefore, examines
the law-making procedure usually followed by the parliament or legislature of any country.
The Process of Law-Making in a Parliament
A bill is a policy proposal presented before the legislature for legislative deliberations and
considerations for it to become a law
Types of bills: there are three types of bills namely;
Public bill: public bills are sponsored or initiated by the executive organ of government. They are
bills that deal with matters that affect the whole country.
Private Member Bill: It is a bill sponsored or initiated by an elected member of the legislature or
parliament. Usually such bills if passed into law affect only a part or fraction of the state
Money Bill: Money bills are also initiated or introduced by the executive organ. Essentially, it deals
with how government raises and spends money
A bill normally passes through many stages before it becomes an act or law. In most cases,
modifications are made in the original bill during its
consideration by the legislature before it becomes law. The process involved in law-making in a
democratic system of government includes the stages stated below:
First Reading A printed copy of the proposed bill is presented to the House through the clerk. The
Clerk reads the short-title of the bill to let lawmakers know it was received. This stage involves the
introduction of the bill with a title and no discussion on it. The order of business for the day will give
the name of the Minister responsible for the bill. Members are also given copies of the document to
enable them to begin private or party discussion on it. The Rules and Business Committee will then
fix a convenient date for the second reading. Usually, members are given sufficient time to fully study
and digest the bill before the appointed date when a detailed consideration of the bill is carried out. It
is important to stress that the first reading is a mere formality for notification since no discussion of
bill is done.
Second Reading At this point, a full parliamentary debate on the content of the bill is allowed. The
sponsor of the bill will introduce and explain the bill. He will then move a motion that the bill is read
the second time. This must be duly seconded. Members are then allowed to robustly debate the bill at
plenary, that is the entire membership of a Legislative House. This is a critical stage when a bill may
survive, be killed or amended. After a thorough debate of the bill has been done, the presiding officer,
either the President of the Senate in the Upper House or the Speaker of the House of Representatives
will call for a vote on whether the bill should be read. If it succeeds, that is if the majority of the
members supports the bill, it is then read for the second time and referred to a committee of the House
responsible for the subject matter of the bill for further consideration. The Rules Committee will then
refer the bill to the Committee for further consideration.
Committee Stage Committee stage is the next after the second reading. There are two types of
committees in most parliaments i.e. a standing committee and a committee of the whole house. Bills
of technical or specialised nature are referred to the standing committee. Usually, there are
committees constituted to handle technical subjects like aviation, education, foreign affairs etc. and
members are often assigned into committees where they have specialities, which they can bring to
bear on deliberations at the committee stage. There are other situations when the committee of the
whole house will sit to consider a bill of special significance. To indicate that the house is at the
committee of the whole stage, the mace, which is the symbol of authority of the house, is lowered or
placed under the table.
At this stage, members of the house are also free to speak more than once, since enforcement of the
standing rules, which guide deliberations at plenary are relaxed. It should be noted that the bulk of
work on a bill is done at this stage when it is considered clause by clause. The bill is given special
attention at this stage. The job of the Committee in the law-making process is to examine the bill in
detail, hold a public hearing, receive and consider memoranda from the public and propose
amendments, if and where necessary.
Report Stage; The Standing Committee then report back to the House the outcome of its
deliberations. The bill, as amended at the committee stage, will be circulated to all members and then
thoroughly debated upon by the House. If necessary, there may be further modifications of the
committee’s recommendation. A motion will be raised for the adoption of the bill and thereafter it is
ready for third reading.
Third Reading; The third reading is a formality because it is minor changes in the wording that is
allowed, and the substance (bill) cannot be amended again. Any amendment is usually of a formal
nature. After the third reading, a copy of the bill endorsed by the Speaker is forwarded to the Second
House. If the bill is passed without amendments, the originating house is accordingly informed, but if
amendments are proposed, the bill together with such amendments are sent back to the First House.
Joint Session; A Joint Session of the two houses will be convened to debate and reconcile the
differences if any, between the two legislative houses in a bicameral legislature such as the United
States of America or Nigeria. The harmonised version is then re-presented to the chambers for their
respective adoption before the bill is sent to the President in Nigeria and USA or the Queen in the
United Kingdom for assent.
Presidential Assent or Veto If both houses accept the report, a clean copy, signed by the clerks of the
two houses and endorsed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the
Senate, is submitted to the President for his assent. In Nigeria, after passing of the bill by both houses,
the Assembly Clerk sends it to the President for assent within 30 days. If the President withholds
assent at the expiration of the 30 days, the bill, on the support of a two-thirds majority of the members
of the two houses automatically becomes law. In Britain, the Queen of England does not have the
power to deny assent to bills already passed by the two houses of parliament.
Law-Making at the Local Government Level
In Nigeria, the local government constitutes the third-tier level of government and usually described
as the closest to the grassroots. The local government performs numerous functions and they are
specified in the fourth schedule of the 1999 constitution, as amended. To discharge their functions
effectively, the local government councils are expected to make bye-laws. There are three types of
draft bye-laws viz: Executive draft bye-law; Member draft bye-law and Private bye-law.
Executive Draft Bye-Law This is a draft bye-law proposed by the Chairman of the Local
Government and forwarded the Legislative arm for consideration and if passed becomes an executive
bye-law.
Member Draft By-Law Member Draft Bye-Law is a draft bye-law initiated by member or group of
Members of the Council as legislative proposals of the Members.
Private Draft Bye-Law A Private Draft bye-law is a draft bye-law other than the ones mentioned
above. It could be sponsored by pressure groups like the labour unions, teachers or private
individuals, but introduced in council by a member or group of members. With the adoption of the
presidential system of government at that level, the law-making process at the local government level
in Nigeria is similar to what obtains at both the federal and state levels, except minor differences and
emphasis that are introduced at the local level to take account of its specific needs and challenges.
First, after a draft bye-law has been introduced into a local government council, any member who
wishes to introduce a substantive motion on it shall give notice of such motion by sending a copy of
the provisions proposed to be embodied on the bye-law to the clerk in advance. The clerk shall cause
them to be published for at least 45 days calling for representations from the public. A copy of the
draft bye-law shall be pasted on the Council’s Notice Board at the Local Government Headquarters
and at the Local Government Area Offices and District Offices.
Law-Making under a Military Rule
The presence of the legislature is one of the major features that distinguish a democratic government
from other forms of governance (including the military rule). The legislature in a democratic society
exists as an independent institution with its unique system, life and process. Unfortunately, this is not
so in a military regime where there is a centralised system of administration based on the unified
command structure of the military such as the Supreme Military Council, the ArmedForces Ruling
Council, and the Provisional Ruling Council under General Gowon, General Babangida and General
Abacha in Nigeria respectively, which had unlimited powers to make laws, which were called decrees
at the federal level, and edicts at the state level. In addition, the military government usually suspend
the constitution in part, or in whole, oust the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain certain cases and
make laws to have a retroactive effect or to abridge the fundamental human rights of the citizens. All
these are possible because military rule is an aberration. In a democratic society, the existence and
active involvement of political parties, organs of government and pressure groups allow for more
diversified participation and inputs into the law-making process. The realisation that the day of
reckoning will certainly come when elected representatives will be required to render an account of
their stewardship usually make government officials take the opinion of their constituents and the
larger public opinion into account in deciding the type and quality of laws they make.

THE EXECUTIVE
Meaning and Composition of the Executive Organ
The executive is the organ of government responsible for the governance of a state. It
enforces the law as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary. It also
formulates and implements public policies in the best interests of its citizens; maintains law
and order; promotes social services; and initiates legislation, among others. It encompasses
all agencies and officials of the government that get involved in the day-to-day running of the
business of government.
The executive is often described as the most powerful, not necessarily the most important
organ of government. For this reason, those who occupy executive positions may be tempted
to be authoritarian, or at times, predatory simply because they control and deploy state funds
and coercive forces. In many countries, the head and members of the executive arm of
government are increasingly assuming importance. In the first place, the head of the
executive at all level is often regarded as the head, symbol and personification of
government.
The executive is composed of the followings: The president/head of state or head of
government; vice president; ministers; civil servants; police and the armed forces. in Nigeria
where there are three levels of government, the chief executive at the level of state and local
government, is the governor (assisted by commissioners) and the council chairman (assisted
by supervisory councillors) respectively. In a democracy, the head of the executive is elected
by popular votes and they, in turn, appoint the ministers, the commissioners or the
supervisory councillors, as the case may be, with the approval of the legislature.
Structure of the Executive Organ
The executive branch of government is broadly divided into two: the members of the cabinet
and other political office holders who hold temporary or tenure appointments, and career civil
or public servants who hold permanent and pensionable positions. While the former is in
charge of initiating government policies, or deciding the direction of the government of the
day, the latter concern themselves with the implementation of such approved policies. In the
parlance of public administration, while the political head is the master of policy, the
administrators are the instruments of policy. Therefore, the executive arm can only function
effectively if there are cooperation and mutual understanding between its two segments.
Types of the Executive Organ
Nominal and Real Executives In a nominal executive, the monarch or the head of the state
has nominal powers; the powers are exercised by his ministers, as in England, Sweden,
Norway, Belgium and Holland, among others. In these countries, for the executive, the
constitution assigns many powers to the president and he exercises these powers. There are
real executives in Nigeria and the United States of America.
Single and Plural Executives In a single executive, all executive powers are vested in one
individual, e.g., the President of Nigeria exercises all executive powers. In a pluralexecutive,
the executive powers are in the hands of more than one individual. In Switzerland, for
instance, the executive powers are vested in the Council of seven members. The Chairman of
this Council has no additional powers. Thus, all seven members are equally responsible for
the administration in that country.
Parliamentary and Presidential Executives In a parliamentary executive, the Cabinet is
responsible to the legislature. This system functions in England, Belgium and Holland,
among others. In a presidential executive, the President has real executive powers and is not
responsible to the Parliament. He is elected for a fixed term and can only be removed through
impeachment. Presidential executive operates in the United States of America, Nigeria,
Brazil, among others. However, in between these two models, there is a French executive
model, which can be called a quasi-parliamentary or quasi- presidential. In the French model
of executive, the President is the real executive but the prime minister and the cabinet are
under his control and, at the same time, they are accountable to the Parliament. So, the French
model imbibes some features of both parliamentary and presidential executives.
Hereditary and Elective Executives When a king or queen is the Head of the State and
when after his or her death, his son or daughter or, in a case where he or she is issueless,
some of his or her near relative occupies the throne, the system is referred to a hereditary
executive. This type of executive functions in England, Belgium, Holland, etc. On the
contrary, in countries where the Head of State is elected either by the people or by their
representatives, the system is referred to as elective executive. We find this system in
Nigeria, the United States of America, Austria, Egypt, etc.
Functions of the Executive Organ
The functions of the executive are not the same everywhere. The functions of the executive
depending on the form of the government. In a democracy, the functions of the executive
devolve primarily in the office of the president in a presidential system, or the office of the
prime minister in a parliamentary system. In Nigeria, for example, apart from expressly
stating the functions of the President who is the chief executive of the country, and his vice,
the 1999 Constitution did not elaborate on the functions of the executive as an organ of
government. The President is to, among other functions determine the general direction of
domestic and foreign policies of the government of the federation and co-ordinate the
activities of the vice president, ministers and the agencies of government in the discharge of
their executive responsibilities. From this brief explanation, we can distil the functions of the
executive arm of government to include:
Policy Making and Implementation The primary function of the executive is to formulate
and decide the policy direction for the state. In a democratic system, such policies are usually
derived from the manifesto presented to the citizens during the elections and upon which the
power was voted into office. While in office, it is the responsibility of the party in
government to translate this blueprint into concrete policies and programmes of the
government of the day.
Administrative Functions In every country, the Head of the State and the Council of
Ministers are responsible for law enforcement and the maintenance of law and order. The
Head of the State, on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, makes many important
political appointments. The administrators are generally recruited based on competitive
examinations. They are promoted, demoted and dismissed under the Civil Service Rules.
Legislative Functions Although lawmaking is the responsibility of the legislature, in every
state, the executive play important role in law-making. The executive prepares bills for this
purpose and introduces them in the legislature. In parliamentary government, the leader of the
majority party becomes the Prime Minister. He influences both the organs of the government
i.e., Legislature and Executive.
Foreign Relations The executive establishes political relations with foreign countries. Our
government has established political or commercial relations with almost all big countries.
The President appoints diplomatic representatives in other countries and receives those of
foreign countries.
THE JUDICIARY
Meaning of the Judiciary
The Black’s Law Dictionary defines judiciary as the branch of government responsible for
interpreting the laws and administering justice. The foregoing definitions highlight certain
essential attributes of the judiciary to include: Judges, courts of law and administration
ofjustice. Therefore, the judiciary is the arm of government that is vested with the judicial
power - the power to construe and apply the law. Functionally, the judiciary is a mechanism
for the resolution of disputes and balancing of conflict of interests. By judiciary, we mean the
court system of a country. The law-making power of the judiciary through the interpretation
of the law and the principle of stare decisis is also noteworthy (Johari, 2009, 2019). In sum,
the judiciary by the nature of powers vested in courts by the constitution stands between the
government and the citizens. It is the last hope of the common man, the hope of the hopeless,
the defender of the defenceless and upholder of the rule of law.
The Hierarchy of Courts in Nigeria
In Nigeria, a settled hierarchy of courts exists. Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) provides for the Nigerian judicial system as follows:
(i) The Supreme Court (the highest court in Nigeria).
(ii) The Court of Appeal, having as at present 17 Divisions in some states of the
Federation.
 (iii) Below the Court of Appeal are the following courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction:
Federal High Court; High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; National
Industrial Court, Customary Court of Appeal and Sharia Court of Appeal of the
Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; High Court of a State; Customary Court of
Appeal and Sharia Court of Appeal of a State.
(iv) Below these courts are the Magistrates’ Courts and District Courts.
(v) The lowest courts are Customary and Area Courts. All the courts listed above are
the regular courts.
There are also special courts like Courts-martial, Tribunals of Inquiry, Rent Tribunals,
Coroners’ Courts, Juvenile Courts, etc. whose jurisdiction, rules, and operation are specially
regulated by the laws establishing them.
Functions of the Judiciary
Important functions of the judiciary are contained in its definition i.e. justice administration
and dispensation - is a minimum requirement of any government in maintaining law and
order, peace and tranquillity in the society. However, depending on the political system, the
followings could be itemised as the functions of the judiciary:
Adjudication The judiciary adjudicates on disputes between states, between the state and
individuals, between individuals and corporations or corporate entities, among others.
Interpretation of the Constitution The judiciary is constituted as the ultimate interpreter of
the constitution and to it is assigned to the delicate task of determining what is the extent and
scope of the power conferred on each branch of government, what the limits on the exercise
of such power under the constitution are and the determination of the question whether any
action of any branch transgresses such limits. Precisely, the judiciary acts as the custodian of
the constitution and the democratic process.
Judicial Review Judiciary acts as checks on both executive and legislative arms of
government in their actions/inactions of government or laws that are not consistent with the
constitution to be declared as null and void. For instance, President Olusegun Obasanjo
signed into law a bill, which extended the tenure of elected local government councils, by one
year, with retroactive effect. But the Supreme Court later annulled the Electoral Act with the
effect that local councils were dissolved after the expiration of the statutory three-year tenure,
as contained in the electoral Decree promulgated by the military, under which councils’
elections were conducted in 1999.
Judicial Independence
The independence of the judiciary means that the court and judges must be free from the
influence of both the government and individuals in the discharge of their functions if justice
is to be obtained. However, in a state where judicial decisions are subject to the dictates of
either the executive or legislative arms of government or both, there can hardly be justice.
Under this condition, it becomes difficult if not impossible for the citizens and non-citizens of
the state to obtain justice. Therefore, only courts, which are not tied to the whims and
caprices of the executive; courts that are free from legislative pressure, political pressure, and
even mob pressure can guarantee judicial independence. Judicial independence, deducing
from the preceding explanation, is when the judiciary is separated from the other arms of
government and immune from partisanship or undue pressure from external bodies to
impartially and expeditiously discharge, without fear or favour, its constitutional
responsibilities. To achieve this, the following conditions should prevail in the polity:
Security of Job A secured and fixed tenure is very important for judges to make their
appointment secured and free from unnecessary manipulation or intimidation by the
Executive. In Nigeria, a judge retires on the attainment of 65 years of age and their
appointment is made on a permanent basis after meeting certain requirements.
Mode of Appointment In some countries, judges are elected but this might make them liable
to political pressures whimsicalities. But, in Nigeria and some other countries in the world,
judicial officers are appointed by the president/governors on the recommendation of major
stakeholders in the judiciary - National Judicial Council, and subject to ratification by the
legislature.
Better Salaries/Emoluments To ensure the independence of the judiciary, judges should be
paid better salaries and allowances. This is not only to attract brilliant lawyers to the bench
but also to distract them away from corruption and unethical practices. In addition to this,
salaries of the judiciary are to be charged on the first line i.e. consolidated fund, which no
other arm of government could selfishly manipulate.
OPERATIONS AND REGULATIONS OF GOVERNMENT
The Theory of Separation of Powers; The Doctrine of Checks and Balance; Rule of Law:
Meaning, Application and Limitations; Evaluation of Rule of Law in Nigeria
THEORY OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
Separation of powers and responsibilities is an important principle in the organisation of
modern government. In this Unit, we shall examine the principle behind the theory of
separation of powers, its objectives and applications in selected countries, as well as its merits
and demerits. Whereas separation of powers and responsibilities is key to the workings of
modern government, no democratic system, in practice, exists with an absolute separation of
powers or an absolute lack of it. Governmental powers and responsibilities essentially
overlap because they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized.
Meaning of Separation of Powers
Separation of powers is the division of government responsibilities into distinct organs to
limit any of the organs from usurping and exercising the core functions of another organ. The
purpose is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances. The
theory simply enjoys that the same body or person should not be in control of more than one
arm of government. Power must not only be separated but must also be exercised by different
persons or body of persons. According to a French political jurist – Baron de Montesquieu
(1748), the concentration of the legislative, executive and judicial functions in the same
person or body of persons would be dangerous and would cause authoritarianism and
despotism. Hence, the need to separate these powers to provide a system of checks and
balances to ensure that no one power became two strong and thus absorb the functions of the
other (Babalola, 2019; Farrugia, 2018; Reader, 2017).
However, while the separation of powers is fundamental to the operational effectiveness of
the modern government, there is no democratic system where the separation of powers is
absolute or completely absent. In practice, governmental powers and responsibilities, rather
than neat compartmentalisation, intentionally overlap. As a result, there is an inherent
measure of competition and conflict among the organs of government. The doctrine of
separation of powers is more pronounced in a presidential democracy than in a parliamentary
democracy, where there is ‘fusion of powers’.
The practice of using power to check power, which is known as ‘checks and balances, is not
necessarily, a violation of the theory of separation of powers; it merely seeks to promote
some interrelationships among the organs to check abuse of government powers. For
example, the laws made by the legislature are interpreted by the judiciary and could be
declared void if found not to be consistent with the provisions of the extant laws. The
executive also initiates laws and presents budgets for the approval of the Legislature;
otherwise, such budgets could not be spent by the Executive. In the same vein, laws made by
the Legislature cannot become operative until it was given assent by the president. The
president can, however, withhold his assent which amounts to an exercise of veto power. The
Legislature can similarly decide to upturn the veto of the president by the use of two-thirds
majority. The executive makes the appointment of senior judicial officers but it has to be
ratified by the Legislature to take effect.

Origin of Separation of Powers

The doctrine of separation of powers is associated with earlier political philosophers. It first
originated in ancient Greece and became widespread in the Roman Republic as part of the
initial Constitution of the Roman Republic. The Aristotle (384-322 BC) in his book “The
Politics” stated that: “There are three elements in each constitution in respect of which every
serious lawgiver must look for what is advantageous to it…. The three are, first, the
deliberative, which discusses everything of common importance; second, the official; and
third the judicial element.” At the time of Edward, I reign (1272-1307), however, the
separation of powers emerged in England, with the appearance of Parliament, the Council of
King and the courts.
The doctrine of separation of powers, however, received its finest formulation by a French
political thinker and jurist, Montesquieu who coined the term "trias politica" or "separation of
powers". His book, “Esprit des lois” “The Spirit of the Laws” published in 1748, is
considered one of the great works in the history of political theory and jurisprudence, and it
inspired the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Constitution of the United States (Ojo,
1973).
Merits and Demerits of Separation of Powers
Demerits
The theory of separation of powers has been instituted to fulfil certain objectives. These
objectives can be regarded as its advantages. They include the following:
Prevention of Tyranny It reduces the abuse of power because power is not concentrated in
one arm of government but rather separated among the three arms. By so doing, the tendency
of having an arbitrary rule is very low.
Specialisation and Efficiency The theory of separation of powers, which is the political
application of the economic theory of division of labour, makes for specialization and
efficiency in governance. By concentrating on the same job in a routinelike manner, the
maxim ‘practice makes perfect’ becomes the order of the day. For instance, by concentrating
on law-making, the legislators will gain expertise in it while the executive also becomes more
adept in the task of policy formulation and its execution. Similarly, the judiciary acquires
better erudition and distinction in its duty of interpretation of the law and settlement of
disputes.
Preservation of Liberty The theory of separation of power also guarantees the rights and
liberty of the citizens. If the powers of the three organs of government are placed under one
authority there is the likelihood that tyranny and arbitrariness may ensue. According to Lord
Acton, “Power intoxicates and absolute, power intoxicates absolutely”.
Safeguards Independence of Each Organ Separation of powers also ensures the
independence of each of the organs of government in the functions and also recognises that
the function assigned to each organ by the constitution requires distinct specialities. For
example, a judge must possess the qualities of impartiality and detachment combined with
brilliance and erudition for him to succeed. A legislator must not only be able to connect with
his constituents, he must also possess the power of communication. Similarly, a chief
executive must have the capacity to rank his priorities among many competing issues within
the policy agenda. Given the different qualities that are required by those that will occupy
these different positions, it is most unlikely that these attributes can be found in one person.
Therefore, it is only through the separation of powers that individuals with these different but
complementary attributes can be assembled to discharge the three functions of government.
Demerits of Separation of Powers
The theory of separation of powers has the following demerits:
(i) A rigid separation of powers may produce negative consequences because it
can make it difficult for the legislature and executive, in particular, to cooperate.
In the event of lack of cooperation between the lawmakers and those who enforce
these laws the machinery of government may be at best, be impeded, or at worse,
grind to a halt.
(ii) (ii) The theory of separation of powers as propounded by Montesquieu has been
criticised for being too idealistic and mechanistic, and therefore not realistic. The
reason is that given the nature and process of government, it is impossible to keep
the three organs of government in separate watertight compartments.
(iii) Although the idea of checks and balances is meant to introduce some level of
flexibility, the mechanism of separation of powers can produce the unintended
consequences of preventing government functionaries from taking quick
decisions.
(iv) Critics of separation of powers argue that complete separation of powers and
functions is impossible in reality. They argue that it is not possible to define the
 area of concern of each organ in such a manner that each is independent and
supreme in its area without the other having a role to play. For instance, the
process of law making is incomplete until the executive gives its assent.
Applications of Separation of Powers
Separation of Powers in the United States of America The principle of separation of powers
is clearly incorporated in the constitution of the United States. The American constitution was
consciously and elaborately made an essay in the separation of powers and is today “the most
important polity in the world which operates upon the principle (Finer, 1949). The
constitution of the United States divides the Congress into two bodies: the Senate and the
House of Representatives; and the two legislative chambers are primarily and exclusively
vested with the law-making powers. The executive powers also solely lie with the executive
arm, while the judicial functions are handled by independent courts. Through the mechanism
of checks and balances, the needed flexibility is introduced into the operations of separation
of powers in the United States (Duignan & Decarlo, 2018).
The fusion of Powers in Britain The British constitution does not provide for the principle of
separation of powers. Rather what obtains in Britain is what is popularly known as a fusion of
powers. This is manifested in different ways. First, the members of the legislature and the
executive are brought into their different offices through the same election. Put differently,
the Prime Minister, who is the head of the executive and his ministers who with him forms
the cabinet must have been elected into the parliament before they can qualify to serve in the
executive arm. Second, the parliament in Britain comprises the House of Commons, House of
Lords, and the Queen, and interestingly the monarch is the head of state in Britain, which
makes him or her ceremonial head of the executive. Third, the Lord Chancellor is not only
the head of the House of Lords, the upper house in Britain, he is also the minister of justice,
and the head of the Privy Council, the equivalent of U.S.’ Supreme Court. The examples
cited above imply that strictly speaking, there is no separation of powers in the operations of
the British government.
THE DOCTRINE OF CHECKS AND BALANCES
The three arms of government appear to be in different compartments in line with the theory
of the separation of powers but there is an inter-relationship between them to check excesses,
abuse of powers or dictatorship, which is inimical to the survival of democracy. The doctrine
of checks and balances is therefore to ensure that the process of governance is devoid of the
gridlock that would have occurred if the theory of separation of powers is strictly followed.
This unit examines the doctrine of checks and balances, its relevance and applications in the
governance of modern states.
Meaning of Checks and Balances
The doctrine of checks and balances is associated with the separation of powers because it
deals with the process whereby the organs of government control the affairs and activities of
one another to ensure that government functions are properly performed. It is only when the
powers of each organ of government are separated from the powers of others that one can
check and correct the mistakes made by the other organs. The doctrine of checks and
balances recognizes that for the effective operation of government, powers must not only
coordinate, they must also overlap. Thus, the legislature looks into the activities of both
executive and judiciary. The executive looks into the activities of both legislature and
judiciary while the judiciary looks into the activities of the legislature and the executive. The
American system of government presents a perfect example of the separation of powers. The
1787 American constitution specifically provides for the principle of division of power and
checks and balances. American is widely known as a model of the presidential system
because it is the first country in the world to practice it.
Application of Checks and Balances
The doctrine of Checks and Balance is a mechanism through which each branch of
government can participate in and influence the activities of the other branches. In the United
States of America and Nigeria, which are perfect models of the presidential system, division
of powers and checks and balances, the Legislature at the National level is bicameral and
Unicameral at the sub-national or state level. Law-making is the primary function of the
members of the legislature who are elected directly by the electorate. The executive functions
are vested in the president who is equally elected by the people. The Supreme Court exercises
judicial powers together with other courts. This indicates that the powers of the three organs
of government are clearly delineated and separated. Checks and balances ensure that the
president can only appoint ministers, judges, ambassadors with the approval of the Senate,
even though these appointees are answerable to him in the discharge of their functions. The
president also presents annual budgets to the legislature for approval; this serves as checks by
the legislature on the executive. The president and his cabinet members are neither members
of the Legislature nor are they members of the judiciary.
The Legislature has no power to remove the president except through the process of
impeachment, while the president cannot dissolve the congress. The bills passed into laws by
the legislature can also not become laws until the executive gives them assent. The judiciary
checks the legislature by interpreting its laws. The judiciary checks the executive policies by
declaring its actions unconstitutional to the point of inconsistency. The control, which the
executive has over the judiciary, is that the executive nominates the judges to the various
courts (Duignan & Decarlo,2018; Fombad, 2016).
The Relevance of Checks and Balances
The relevance of checks and balances are as follows:
Accountability It makes accountability possible because powers are separated and it
becomes easy to assess the performance of any organ of government. Through this
mechanism, the three organs of government are accountable to one another and to the people.
Rule of Law Through checks and balances and separation of powers, the rule of law is
encouraged. The principle is introduced to encourage the government of law and not the
government of men. That is, to ensure that those who govern, do so according to the laid
down rules and regulations, and not based on their whims and caprices. The constitution
stipulates the various functions of the organs of government and how they are controlled. Due
to the existence of checks and balances, the principle of the rule of law is strictly observed
because everybody, both the government and the governed, are equal before the law, and no
one must infringe on each other’s right.
Good Governance Mindful of the fact that there is a form of peer mechanism, government
officials are careful with their activities so as not to be checked, and possibly embarrassed.
For instance, the legislature would be meticulous in its law-making function to avoid
incurring the wrath of both the executive and the judiciary. As a result, laws made by the
legislature are bound to be good since it would not want a situation of it becoming a laughing
stock in the eyes of the executive or the judiciary if its laws are regularly vetoed by the
former or constantly annulled by the latter. The same thing applies to the executive and the
judiciary. By so-doing, good governance is guaranteed
THE RULE OF LAW
the concept of the rule of law has become a popular mantra in the lexicon of political science
and government. It is used to distinguish a government that is guided by laws from one that is
dictated by the whims and caprices of the leaders. This unit examines the concept of rule of
law, its principles and limitations. The unit in addition examines the observance of rule of
law in democratic and military or dictatorial governments.
The Concept of Rule of Law
The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, is a general legal maxim according to which
decisions should be made by applying known principles of laws, without the intervention of
discretion in their application. The intent is to guard against tyranny and arbitrary governance
(Rawls, 2003). Generally speaking, the law is a body of rules prescribed by the state subject
to sanctions or consequences. The predominant view is that the concept of "rule of law" per
se says nothing about the "justness" of the laws themselves, but simply how the legal system
operates. As a consequence of this, a very undemocratic nation or one without respect for
human rights can exist with a rule of law - a situation which may be occurring in several
modern dictatorships.
The classical definition of the concept of rule of law was given by A.V. Dicey (1958). In his
conception, the rule of law means: “the absolute supremacy of regular law as opposed to the
influence of arbitrary power, and exclude the existence of arbitrariness or prerogative or even
of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government”. This definition means that the
rule of law is a principle that seeks to curb government powers by insisting that governance
should be in accordance with the laws of the land and not according to the arbitrary rule of
officeholders. It also implies that no man can be punished except for a proven breach of law.
The other major element of the rule of law is the equality of all classes of people before the
law as administered by the ordinary courts.
At present, the concept of rule of law has been expanded beyond the classic formulation
provided by Dicey. The doctrine is now recognised to include:
i. The supremacy of the law including judicial authority over all persons and
authority in a state. ii.
ii. The supremacy of the constitution.
iii. The independence of the judiciary.
iv. The right to personal liberty.
v. Observance of democratic practices including the conduct of regular, free and
vi. Fair elections as a basis for assuming political power (Anifowose & Enemuo,
2005, pp.151- 152).
In short, the rule of law stipulates that government is instituted and limited to its power
according to the extant laws, and should be devoted to the preservation of the liberties of
individual citizens, all of whom are deemed to be equal before the law. By guaranteeing civil
rights, the rule of law also creates the basic conditions in which individuals can pursue their
own personal development as they choose. The fundamental human rights of the citizens are
defined and enforced by the law of the land. One of the main purposes of the rule of law is to
ensure that the civil liberties of the citizens are safeguarded from the arbitrary interference of
those in authority.
Rule of Law and Democracy
The rule of law is better realized under democracy than a dictatorship (Alonge, 2005).
Democratic governance is based on the will of the people and in the form of governance best
suited to allow all people to live in dignity and freedom. Democracy requires a “rule of
law”framework to govern the interaction and co-existence of all citizens. The doctrine of rule
of law is intimately bound with the practice of democracy. As Sagay (1996, p.13) rightly
observed, ‘there can be no democracy without the rule of law and vice versa’. The rule of law
may be a necessary condition for democracy but it is not a sufficient condition. For much of
human history, rulers and laws were synonymous = the law was simply the will of the ruler.
A first step away from such tyranny was the notion of rule by law, including the notion that
even a ruler is under the law and should rule by virtue of legal means.
Although no society or government system is problem-free, rule of law protects fundamental
political, social, and economic rights of the citizens.
The basic thrust of the three branches of government is the search for justice through the law.
Justice is the end, the terminus adquem towards which all the laws passed by the legislator,
all the executive function of government, and the administration of law in our courts,
naturally end. It is to be emphasized that any power given to the judiciary is not for the
gratification of the judge but rather to enable him more effectively administer justice, to
enable him to protect innocent citizens from power and its abuse by the various
concentrations of power. Protection from power is thus the necessary roles of the courts and
the citizens’ last line of defence in their unequal combat with power. The independence of the
judiciary is thus the citizens’ bulwark against oppression, their charter of liberties and a force
for stability, peace and progress in the society.
Limitations of Rule of Law
Although in a democracy, all men are equal before the law, in reality; these precepts are
usually observed in the breach. In totalitarian states, there is no pretence about rule of law,
because, in those states, the law and the courts are regarded as instruments of state policy. In
other words, the law exists to foster and advance the interests of the strong to the detriment of
the weak. Thus, violation of laws or denial of rights for political ends is an attribute of both
developed and emerging democracies. The only difference is that while the abuse and
violations are gross in the emerging democracies, in the developed democracies, there are
subtle ways to dress up or mitigate these denials, where they cannot be avoided.
The principle of equality before the law therefore has some limitations. The modern state
maintains vast paraphernalia for the prosecution of alleged offenders, there is no such
organisation for their adequate defence. Worse still, the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria that is
supposed to come to the assistance of the poor does not enjoy the required support from the
government to enable it to discharge its functions effectively. More fundamentally, the
enjoyment of human rights such as rights to life, freedoms of expression, among others is not
absolute. They can be denied, suspended or abridged if the need arises. For instance:
Right to Life The government can deny or deprive a citizen right to life under the following
conditions: For the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of
property to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained and to
suppress a riot.
TYPES OF POLITICAL/ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS
The structure of governments is of crucial importance for their overall functioning. Aside
from the structure, the geographic distribution of power also plays a crucial role in the
effective function of a government. In every system of government, the power to govern is
located in one or more places geographically. There are, of course, a variety of constitutional
structures of national government throughout the world. This module, which is sub-divided
into five units, will examine the meaning and basic features of the five structures of the
national government.
Presidential System of Government; Parliamentary System of Government; Unitary System
of Government; Federal System of Government; Confederal System of Government
PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
The presidential system government is a model of political and administrative governance in
operation in many countries, developed and developing, in which both the executive and
ceremonial powers are exercised by a single person who is also addressed as the Commander
in Chief of the armed forces. This unit takes a look at this system of government by first
defining it and identifying its major characteristics. It also examines its merits and demerits
as well as its practice in specific countries such as the United States and Nigeria.
The Meaning of Presidential System of Government
The institution of a single man and non-parliamentary executive chiefly characterises the
presidential system of government. The same person who holds the title of the head of state is
also head of government. The real political or executive power is combined with the
ceremonial powers and are both exercised by a single man who is also addressed as the
Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The executive headed by him is the government
and it is headed by the president who is also the head of the executive. The president is
normally elected directly through popular votes or, indirectly via the collegiate system,
otherwise known as the Electoral College and he is directly accountable to the electorate. The
election to the office of the president is independent of the election to the legislature. The
whole country constitutes a single constituency to the president.
On assumption of office, the president is seen as the symbol of national unity and chief
administrator for the nation. Agarwal et al (1994) define the presidential system as that type
of government in which the three organs of government, that is the legislature, the executive
and the judiciary are separated and co-ordinate in power, each of them acting independently
within its own sphere. The President does not share his power with any other person, unlike
the Prime Minister who is first among equals in a parliamentary system. The holder of the
office of president is often called executive president because he is solely responsible for the
implementation of legislative decisions. He is the chief security officer of the whole country,
and in the exercise of this power, he sees to the maintenance of law and order in the country.
He is also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, which confers on the occupant of that
office the power to declare war to defend the independence, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of his country. Examples of countries in the world that practice this system of
government are U.S.A, Spain, France, and Nigeria. The tenure office of the president is fixed;
he stays in office for a specific tenure and he can be re-elected for a second term. The number
of years a president stays in office depends on the constitution of the country concerned. In
Nigeria, the fixed tenure for any president is four years (Omololu and Suzanne, 2016).
Features of Presidential System of Government
i) Combination of Two Offices in One: The combination of the office of the head of state and
head of government makes for quick and prompt decisions, especially on rare occasions when
delays or vacillations may be dangerous for the corporate existence of a nation. To facilitate
this, the American presidential system, for instance, allows the president the power to issue
executive orders without recourse to the congress, while the Nigerian system also permits a
president to take steps in exceptional circumstances, before seeking the approval of the
National Assembly.
ii) Presidential Discretion in Appointments: The President also has a free hand in appointing
his ministers and other government appointees. Ministers can be chosen from outside the
president’s party. This is due to the insulation of the president from party politics under the
presidential system of government.
iii) A Single Countrywide Constituency: The whole country constitutes a single constituency
for the president in a presidential system of government and he is elected for a fixed term of
four years, and separately from members of the parliament.
iv) Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: The presidential system of government is
anchored on the twin mechanisms of separation of power and checks and balances. This is
not the case in the parliamentary system where there is a fusion of power among the three
organs of government.
v) Fixed Tenure of Office: The President under the presidential system has a fixed tenure in
office, usually a four-year period before another election is due when he can seek for re-
election for another term in office. In Nigeria and the United States, no president can serve in
office for more than two terms.
vi) Veto Power: In the presidential system of government, the president is constitutionally
empowered to refuse to assent any bill passed by the legislature that he considers to be
against the public interest, but it isn’t a feature in the parliamentary system of government.
vii) Primacy is accorded to the Constitution The constitution is the supreme law in the
presidential system. This is unlike most parliamentary system where supremacy lies with the
parliament.
Merits and Demerits of Presidential System of Government
Merits
 i) Promptness in Decision-making The presidential system of government makes for decisive
actions because the president knows that ‘the buck stops on his desk’, a phrase popularised by
the late Harry Truman when he decided to use nuclear weapons against two Japanese cities to
bring about a decisive end to World War II. In America and Nigeria, the constitution did not
even make it mandatory for the president to call a meeting of the executive council before he
can take action on any issue. The president is at liberty to either consult his ministers or any
of them or refuse to seek their opinion in taking decisions. This promptness in decision-
making therefore makes the response of the government to issues quick and decisive,
especially in situations where any delay in taking action may be dangerous.
ii) Presidential Discretion in Appointments In the presidential system of government, the
president uses his discretion to appoint his ministers and other government appointees.
Ministers could be chosen from outside the president’s party. This confers a high degree of
latitude on the president to select the best materials from any part of the country. Since the
buck stops at his desk, the president can easily replace or fire any of his appointees because
they are directly responsible to him.
iii) A Single Countrywide Constituency The fact that the electorate popularly elects the
president makes the whole country a single constituency for him, and as such, the party does
not have an overbearing control over him, beyond offering him advice at party caucuses. He,
rather than his party or his appointees, bear responsibilities for his actions and inactions.
This constitutes a consistent source of pressure on him to perform since he cannot shift blame
to any other person.
iv) Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances The mechanism of separation of power
enhances the effective performance of each organ of government in its functions, while
checks and balances also ensure that a dictatorial president can be brought under
constitutional checks. The combination of the two devises will obviously improve the
performance of government.
v) Fixed Tenure of Office The fixed tenure in the office enjoyed by the president under the
presidential system makes for the stability of the government and the continuity of policies. A
stable government allows for both medium- and long-term planning, rather than the
instability that characterises a parliamentary system of government. A new general election
can be called in a parliamentary system any time a vote of no confidence is passed on the
government
vi) Individual Ministerial Responsibility Ministers take responsibilities for their actions
individually not collectively. Thus, unlike the parliamentary system which allows a non-
performing minister to shelter under the concept of collective responsibility, the presidential
system makes it easier for an ineffective minister to be identified and singled out for blame or
even dismissal. His dismissal will not affect other ministers or even, in the extreme make a
government collapse.
Demerits
i) Prone to Dictatorship: The presidential system is prone to dictatorship or abuse of office,
which is dangerous to the democratic process. This is a result of enormous power that is
constitutionally allotted to the office of the president. Presidentialism focuses too much on
the personality of the president and his capacity, and when the individual is undermined the
office is undermined and the system may even be threatened. The disposition of the president
to be autocratic can also be attributed to the cumbersome process that is required before a
sitting president can be impeached.
ii) Friction among Government Organs: Separation of powers can cause delays in the
execution of government policies and programmes, especially in situations where executive-
legislative relations are not properly managed. In less matured democracies of the developing
world, this problem is more acute when different political parties are in control of the
executive and thelegislature. A watertight separation of power often inhibits the smooth
running of government, especially if an attempt by one organ to moderate the activities of the
other through the mechanism of checks and balances is being resisted
iii) Expensive to Operate: Another demerit of the presidential system is that it is very
expensive to run. In the presidential system, elected members of the legislature are required
to resign before they can be appointed as ministers, unlike in the parliamentary system which
selected cabinet members from the elected members of the parliament. This arrangement is
economically more efficient than the presidential system.
iv) Absence of Party Discipline: Unlike the parliamentary system where party discipline is
very strong and which fuses the cabinet and the parliament into one like a ‘Siamese twin’
which must swim and sink together, this is not the case in a presidential model.
Application of the Presidential System of Government
The Presidential system of government is an operation in many countries. The countries
include the United States, a country that is unarguably the model for that system of
government. Indeed Nigeria, with minor modifications, adopted the American type of
presidential system of government in 1979.The United States’ constitution under Article II
provided for the establishment of the office of a strong president. As pointed out by
Alexander Hamilton, a popular delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Article II was
aimed towards “energy in the Executive”. The constitution did so to overcome the natural
stalemate that was built into the bicameral legislature as well as into the separation of powers
among the three organs of government.
The President of the United States exercises executive powers as the head of state; head of
government and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The arrangement almost equally
applies to Nigeria. One major difference is that the vice president in the United States is also
the president of the senate, a position he occupies by the fact of his being the incumbent vice
president. He seldom attends the sittings of the upper house except on the rare occasion when
he is expected to use his casting vote to break a tie in voting in the senate. In Nigerian, the
president of the senate is first and foremost an elected member of the senate before he is
elected from among his colleagues as the presiding officer of the senate.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
The Meaning of the Parliamentary System of Government
The parliamentary system of government is a system of democratic governance of a country,
wherein the executive branch is derived from the legislative body, i.e. the Parliament. Here,
the executive is divided into two parts, the Head of the State, i.e. President, who is only the
nominal executive and the Head of the Government, i.e. Prime Minister, who is the real
executive, performs the real and executive functions.
In a parliamentary system, the political party that wins the maximum number of seats during
federal elections, in the Parliament, forms the government. The party elects a member, as a
leader, who is appointed as the prime minister by the president. After the appointment of the
prime minister, the cabinet is formed by him, whose members should be out of the
parliament. the executive body, i.e. the cabinet is accountable to the legislative body, i.e.
parliament. In Britain, a good example of a country operating the parliamentary system of
government, the prime minister, who is the head of government, performs the substantive
executive functions. The prime minister is usually appointed by the head of state from the
party that controls majority seats in the legislature. The head of state, like the Queen in Great
Britain, performs ceremonial duties like welcoming foreign dignitaries, presiding over
important national functions or ceremonies, signing bills into law in the parliament and
addressing the parliament at the beginning and the end of parliamentary life. Nigeria
practised the parliamentary system of government in the First Republic (1960-1966)
Collective Responsibility In the parliamentary system of government, members of the
government are collectively responsible for the successes/failures of the government and all
ministers, not just departmental ministers concerned, must collectively share moral
responsibility for its policies. Implicit in this is the notion that all ministers are bound to
support government decisions before the public, parliament and the party, and at the very
least, must refrain from openly criticising government policy. This doctrine also implies that
a minister who dislikes a particular government policy must reconcile his differences or
resign from the government. Sometimes resignation comes immediately, as Mr Christopher
Mayhow did when he resigned over defence policy in 1966. Alternatively, the ministers may
remain for a time in the cabinet hoping to convert its views as with Mr Frank Cousins who
was known to be hostile to the prices and incomes policy of the then Labour government long
before he eventually resigned in1966.
A similar lack of cabinet solidarity on a fundamental issue was revealed in 1974 when both
Michael Foot (Secretary of State for Employment) and Eric Heffer (Minister of State for
Industry) openly disagreed with the Labour Government’s decision to supply arms to the then
new antiCommunist regime in Chile. The maintenance of a united government front is an
essential prerequisite for the preservation of party discipline in the Commons and to the
answering of opposition and public criticism of government policy. In this respect collective
responsibility also serves as a means of suppressing differences of opinion within the
government itself. The doctrine applies to all ministers, from senior cabinet ministers to
junior ministers.
Features of Parliamentary System of Government
The major features of the parliamentary system of government, which markedly differ from
the features of the presidential system discussed in the preceding unit, include:
i) Dual Executive In the cabinet system of government, the head to state is different from the
head of government; the Queen performs the ceremonial functions while the Prime Minister
performs the executive functions (as it operates in Great Britain).
ii) Fusion of Powers The theory of separation of power is not strictly observed in the cabinet
system of government since there is no separation of powers between the executive and
legislature, the cabinet members are also members of the legislature; they both take part in
drafting bills (The minister in Britain is also a member of the legislature which makes it
possible for him to combine an executive and legislature functions). In the cabinet system of
government, the executive depends on the legislature for its existence since there is a fusion
of power.
iii) Tenure not Guaranteed In the cabinet system of government, the head of government,
prime minister will lose his position while the government he heads will resign when a vote
of no confidence is passed against him in parliament. This implies that the prime minister can
only remain in office for as long as his party still control the majority of seats in parliament.
iv) Power of Attainment Another difference between these two systems of government is the
power of attainment, which can throw up an elected memberof the legislature into the
position of a prime minister, on the strength of his ability to command the loyalty of his
former colleagues. In Britain, the then Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron was initially an
elected member of House of Commons on the ticket of the Conservative Party before he rose
to become the British Prime Minister. His party then led a coalition government with the
Liberal Democratic Party while the Labour Party was the official opposition party.
v) Official Opposition In the parliamentary system of government, the opposition party is
officially recognised, i.e. the party that is strongly recognized with the majority seats in the
legislature forms the government while the other party constitutes the opposition. The leader
of the opposition party forms the shadow cabinet and is ever ready to form a new government
on the collapse of the ruling party.
vi) Parliamentary Supremacy The parliamentary system of government is characterised by
parliamentary supremacy. The constitution is not supreme, rather the primacy lies with the
legislature, or the parliament as it is called in Britain. The legislature can re-write or edit the
written parts of the constitution and also dissolve the cabinet at any time. In Great Britain, the
Queen can dissolve the parliament when advised to do so by the prime minister.
vii) Party Discipline In the parliamentary system of government, there is the existence of
party discipline (adherence to party ideals and proposal) if the party discipline is weak the
party in power would find it difficult to maintain a majority in the legislature and so some of
its policies may be defeated. It is also essential that ministers must come from the same party
with the prime minister in the cabinet.
Applications of the Parliamentary System of Government
Britain is one country in the world that is foremost in its adoption and practice of the
parliamentary system of government. In Britain, there is a separation between the head of
state (the Queen) and the head of government (the prime minister). Under this system which
is also referred to as a cabinet government, the parliament is the supreme legislative body in
Britain. The parliamentary system after centuries of its operation in Britain has remained, to a
reasonable extent, a success story.
Nigeria operated the parliamentary system of government in the First Republic, and like
Britain, its Parliament was bicameral (the Senate and House of Representatives). But unlike
the British model, Nigeria had a written constitution. Before Nigeria became a republic in
1963, the head of state was designated a Governor-General, then a titular head just like the
Queen he represented. But after 1963 when Nigeria became a republic the post of head of
state was renamed the President. The title of Prime Minister for the head of government was
retained in 1963, as it was in 1960 when Nigeria became independent. Nigeria, however,
discarded the parliamentary system in 1979 after the return to democratic government,
because the ills and consequent failure of the First Republic were partly blamed on the
parliamentary system of government.
Merits and Demerits of the Parliamentary System of Government
Merits
i) The parliamentary system of government curbs autocracy and dictatorship in
government. It is very difficult for the system to breed or produce dictators since the
government is always conscious of the fact that if it does, it will incur the wrath of
members of parliament which may lead to the passing of a vote of no confidence on
it. The notion of party discipline which requires that both the government in power
and members of parliament follow the laid down policies and programmes of the
party as contained in its manifestoes usually ensure that neither the government nor
the parliament crosses the line.
ii) The parliamentary system promotes dedication and efficiency in government. The
ministers at party caucus must have thoroughly discussed proposals/bills before
bringing them to the parliament for consideration. This ensures quick approval of
policies and enacted of laws since members of the cabinet also sit in parliament
where they see to their passage. In addition, to avoid criticisms and the possibility of
a vote of no confidence in his government, the prime minister is always conscious of
putting in the best. This is done through regular check on the activities of his
ministers. The efficiency of ministers is further open to closer scrutiny during
Question Time.
iii) There is a lot of merit in the concept of collective responsibility which requires all
members of the cabinet to be united in all its decisions. This makes the cabinet as a
body to be careful about its conduct in office because it may have far-reaching
implications on the stability and survival of the government. The parliamentary
system is equally responsive to public opinion. This is because the cabinet is not
responsible to the Prime Minister who appoints them but to the parliament.
iv) The presence of an officially recognised opposition party in a parliamentary system
of
government makes the ruling party or the governing coalition to be conscious of its
responsibilities to the electorate. For this reason, the government is always alert to
alternative views that may be canvassed by the opposition to know where to improve
its performance. The role of the opposition party, therefore, is not only to
constructively criticize the government as an effective watchdog but also to see itself
as the government in waiting or as an alternative government, that is ready to take
over the government should the situation arises.
v) The fusion of power which ensures that cabinet members are also parliamentarians
promotes mutual understanding between the legislative and the executive branches of
government. The fact that members of the executive also sit in the legislature as
 lawmakers ensure that the process of decision making is faster. It does not require
further elaboration to know that consensus on major issues can be easily reached
since the cabinet usually operates as a committee of the parliament.
vi) vi) The parliamentary system is less expensive to run because ministers are chosen
from elected members of parliament. This is not the case under the presidential
system of government where ministers are chosen from outside the parliament. Thus,
the additional money that will be required to hire more hands outside the legislature
is saved in a parliamentary system of government.
vii) vii) Despite changes of government at regular intervals, the nonpartisan but largely
ceremonial and symbolic role of the monarch or head of state in a parliamentary
system contributes to continuity and sustenance of state institutions. For example, in
Britain, because the Queen has been in office since 1953, she has remained the
anchor of stability of the British institutions and values, despite changes in
governments in the country in the past 53 years now.
Demerit
i) The best people may not be in government since the Prime Minister is restricted to
appoint ministers into his cabinet from members of his party. This is not the case in
the presidential system of government where even the non-card-carrying party
members are appointed to serve in the cabinet and other key positions in government.
ii) Parliamentary system violates the principle of separation of powers and the
expectations that liberty of the citizens and rule of law will be guaranteed. A major
disadvantage of fusion of powers is that it may lead to a needless bottleneck in the
relationships among the organs of government and complexity in the administration
of government.
iii) There is also the danger of personality clash or conflict of interest between the head
of state and head of government in a parliamentary system of government. This type
of conflict of interest manifested in the First Republic in Nigeria when Dr Azikiwe,
then President and Alhaji Tafawa Balewa, then Prime Minister disagreed over the
conduct and outcome of the December 30, 1964, federal elections. In
September2010, the Somalia Prime Minister, Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke
resigned from office due to personal disagreement between him and president Sheik
Sharif Ahmed. Thus, Nigeria opted for the presidential system of government in 1979
partly to avoid a possible repeat of the constitutional crisis, which enveloped the
country in the aftermath of the disagreement between the two leaders.
iv) Another demerit of the parliamentary system of government is that it can also throw
up a person who is not countrywide popular or known as a Prime Minister. Unlike
the presidential system, which requires the president to have a countrywide appeal
before he can be elected, the requirements for the office of a Prime Minister are less
stringent. Any elected member of House of Commons from a single-member
constituency who is believed to have the majority support of other members can
become the leader of the government in Britain. This was exploited in Nigeria during
the First Republic when the leaders of the Northern People’s Congress did not bother
to campaign in the other regions because they were confident that votes from the
Northern region alone were sufficient to earn them the prestigious post of Prime
Minister.
UNITARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
Meaning of Unitary System of Government
A government is regarded as unitary when the national or central government is supreme over
other levels of government that might existin a given state. Other levels of government
referred to in the above definition are the local governments or units. The central government
enjoys almost complete control over their smaller local government entities. In a unitary
system, almost all power and responsibility is vested in the central government. Local
governments may only exercise power through the central government. The central
government has full legal right to over-rule such Local governments. They are not only
created by the centre, they owe their existence to the centre and are subordinate to the
national government. The principle that governs a unitary constitution is Unitarianism. The
word ‘Unitarianism’ means the concentration of political power in the hands of one visible
sovereign power; be it that of a parliament or a legitimate dictator. In short, a unitary
constitution means that sovereignty is exercised from one source rather than from many
sources. It is a unit centre of power, meaning that power emanates from one source only.
We must note that the terms unitarism and federalism are contradictory and mutually
exclusive. To put it differently, while there are different types of unitary or federal
constitution, we cannot, strictly speaking, have a constitution which is, at the same time,
unitary and federal, The phrase quasi-federal or quasi unitary is a hybrid, which merely seeks
to derive the best from both ends, and is therefore unrealistic. Though a full discussion of the
federal form of government in the next unit, it will be of benefit to you here if we enrich this
discourse by introducing what the late Chief Awolowo once popularised and described as the
linguistic principles. Although the first and fourth of these four principles are particularly
relevant to our discussion on the unitary form of government, it will be more illuminating to
mention the other two:
i) If a country is unilingual and uni-national, the constitution must be unitary.
ii) If a country is unilingual or bilingual or multilingual, and also consists of
communities which, over years, have developed divergent nationalities, the
constitution must be federal, and the constituent states must be organized on the
dual basis of language and nationality.
iii) If a country is bilingual or multilingual, the constitution must be federal and the
constituent states must be organized on a linguistic basis.
iv) Any experiment with a unitary constitution in a bilingual or multilingual or
multinational country is bound to fail, in the long run.
Characteristics of a Unitary System of Government
The following are the major characteristics or features of a unitary system of government:
i) There is only one centre of power from which authority flows to subordinate
levels that are created by the centre.
ii) The central government not only has the power to dissolve the subordinate levels
it has created; it can equally modify or reduce the powers given to them.
iii) The subordinate levels are created as agents of the centre to administer the local
areas on behalf of the centre and to also convey the wishes of the people in the
local areas to the centre where the real power lies.
 iv) A unitary government may either operate a unicameral or bicameral legislature.
For example, Ghana and Britain are unitary states, with the former operating a
unicameral while the latter a bicameral legislature.
Applications of Unitary System of Government
Britain operates a unitary system of government. Under this arrangement, all governmental
powers are concentrated at the central level. Any local level of government that exists are
created and allocated powers by the central government. This is unlike the United States and
Nigeria where the states as federating units derive their powers from the constitution, and are
equal, exercising co-ordinate authority with the federal government in those powers allotted
to them.
Merits and Demerits of Unitary System of Government
Merits
i) Since the logic and mechanism of a unitary government avoids the division of a
country into autonomous regions or states, it can help to preserve and promote
national unity. Unlike a federal system that promotes regionalism and tribalism,
which further engender dual citizenship and double allegiance, one supreme central
government under a unitary framework will put an end to all these divisive and
centrifugal forces.
ii) ii) In the unitary system, there is the absence of duplication of centre powers as it is
in the federal states. Since decisions on all important issues are made at the centre, it
reduces the cost of governance.
iii) iii) The concentration of power rather than its dispersion ensures a strong
government. This is because there is minimal diversity in a unitary state. In a unitary
system of government due to muchidentical culture, economic and social
composition of the people in the state, there is usually the absence of friction, tension
or rancour, that often characterise the federal system in the struggle for “unity in
diversity.”
iv) The principle ensures that even development is realised in a state that operates a
unitary system of government.
v) There is uniformity of laws and administration in a unitary state. This ensures that
there is no overlapping or conflict of jurisdiction throughout the state. This makes the
allegiance of the citizens remain undivided. Unlike in the federal system of
government where citizens owe allegiance both to the centre and the region to which
they belong, such a situation that can breed separatist tendencies is avoided in a
unitary state.
Demerits
i) In a unitary system of government, power is highly centralised and concentrated in
one sovereign. This can lead to totalitarianism, oligarchy or even autocracy in the
running of the affairs of the state. The unitary system as a result of the point
mentioned above often makes it difficult for the masses to take an active part in civic
affairs of their state.
ii) There is also no local initiative in a unitary system of government. This is because
the little or residual power delegated to the local authorities can be taken away from
 them at the whims and caprices of the centre. In France, for example, ‘the Minister of
Interior presses the button and the prefects, the subprefects, the Mayors and the
Deputy Mayors do the rest.’
iii) The central government is not always aware of local problems since it is not closer
to the grassroots.
iv) The unitary system can also easily collapse. A single central authority may easily
collapse under stress from within and without. Multiplication of centres of power
serves as a safeguard against such a danger.
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM
Federalism is a very complex political system that requires tolerance, compromise and
accommodation from its operators before it can succeed. This unit takes a closer look at the
federal system by first defining it and stating its features. The unit also examines the factors
that can predispose a country in the direction of federalism as a system of government, as
well as the different types of federal systems that are being practised across the world. The
unit finally discusses the merits and demerits of the federal system of government.
Meaning of Federalism
Federalism is a type of political system in which the powers of government are divided
between self-governing parts and the national or central government. Each of these parts
operates within its own jurisdiction or sphere as defined or specified in the constitution. Put
differently, in a federation, the distribution of powers between the inclusive government and
the federating units are guaranteed by theconstitution of the country. Kenneth Wheare (1963),
a foremost authority on federalism defined it as aconstitutional arrangement in which “neither
the central nor regional governments are subordinate to each other, but rather the two levels
of government are coordinate and equal.” Wheare also set out conditions that can make a
federal constitution/system succeed. According to him, the component units must be fairly
equal in size and population so as to prevent one unit from dominating the other or a
combination of two or more units, from dominating the entire federation.
Furthermore, in a federal system, the constituent units have some rights of existence which
empower them to perform certain functions which are guaranteed by a constitution. This
means in effect that the powers being exercised by these component states are distributed
along what is known in America as reserved or shared powers, or in Nigeria as Exclusive,
Concurrent and Residual powers. Indeed, in most federations, the constituent units often
predated the central government. The United States of America (the oldest federation),
Canada, Russia, and the Peoples Republic of China, India, Pakistan and Nigeria are good
examples of federations. From the above examples of federal states, we must note that a
federation is either a union of autonomous states that have come together to become a larger
political entity as in USA (Aggregative federation) or a federation where a large country is
broken into smaller units, as it is the case in Nigeria (Dis-aggregative federation)
(Ayoade,1980).
We should also note that in a federation, two governments control the same group of people
but with each level handling different political matters. The allocation of responsibilities to
the component parts by the constitution and respect of their competence in those areas is vital
to the survival of federations. The reason for this is that most federations are often the result
of a political compromise by which reluctant memberstates were induced to come together in
a larger union with a promise that their desire for autonomy in certain areas will be respected.
This was the case with the United States when the original 13 states, after the collapse of the
Confederal structure saw in a federal arrangement a more realistic structure that could make
them cooperate in a union, without the federating units losing their autonomy to handle
matters that were of local concern, or specific to them.
Federalism can also be viewed either as a process or condition and that is why federations
operate in a variety of different political contexts and are associated with a variety of
different political outcomes. In other words, there is no distinctively federal pattern of
relations between the national and regional level of government. This further implies that no
two federations are structured alike since the nature of communities that come together to
form a nation differ (Inman& Rubinfeld, 2020).
Factors that Influence the Choice of Federalism
The following factors influence the choice of federalism:
i) Historical Factor The most fundamental reason why states decide to federate is historical.
This reflects the fact of common association and similarity of political institutions that had
existed between the federating units that made formerly independent states to agree at a point
in their history to form a common union. This was the case with the United States of America
after its war of independence with Britain in 1776 and the failure of the Articles of
Confederation. It is similar with the Nigerian Federation after the historical factor of the
amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates in 1914, British colonial rule, as
well as the adoption of common political institutions by the North and South during this
period, eventually led to the adoption of the federal system in1954.
ii) Geographical Contiguity The nearness of states to one another in the geographical term
is usually a major factor that can induce them to form a federation. It is inconceivable to have
states widely separated by land or sea forming a federation. It can be plausibly argued that
one of the reasons why Nigeria adopted a federal structure is because the various ethnic
groups in the country are geographically contiguous. The fact of this proximity among the
different nationalities in Nigeria, a similar feature of other federal states such as the United
States, the old Soviet Union and the present Russian Federation, makes communication a
major step in deciding to form a federation. On the other hand, the absence of this factor
largely accounted for the disintegration in 1971 of the union between West and East Pakistan
to form Pakistan after the Partition of India by the British in 1947.
iii) Ethnic and Cultural Diversities
Some states may decide to federate in recognition of the fact that their peoples are so diverse
in culture, language and interests and for this reason, the unitary option may provide a ready
answer for such social heterogeneity. For example, the Nigerian and Indian Unions
recognised that federalism is the most effective way of allaying the fears of these groups
against one another in order to forge unity in diversity. Unity in diversity is achieved in
federations because peoples with different cultural backgrounds are allowed to develop along
the lines that interest them.
iv) Economic and Administrative Advantages The need to create a large internal market
and to pool human and material resources together can lead to the formation of the union of
states. This factor, which is similar to what economists call the drive for large economies of
scale, has made the United States of America today to become a continental-size country. The
present over 9 million sq kilometre territory of USA came about due to accretion in size, or
what federalists call aggregation. Indeed Louisiana, now a state in the USA was purchased
from France in 1803 while President Andrew Jackson forcefully acquired East Florida from
Spain. The notion ‘the bigger the better’ syndrome also fits into the economic calculations of
the former colonial masters in working out the amalgamation policy for the north and south
of Nigeria, which assisted them to utilise the available few British administrators most
economically and efficiently. Nigeria with a territory of 923,766 square km. and a population
(as at 2010) of about 150 million has huge economic potentials and offers tremendous
opportunities, all consequent to its large market.
V. Fear of Domination Insecurity and fear of domination by external power or possible
rebellion by a disaffected element (s) within a country can also encourage the formation of a
federation. According to Awa (1976), in the Nigerian case, it was lack of trust among the
ethnic groups that led to the forging of the Nigerian federation, a political arrangement they
saw as a more effective device that can safeguard and guarantee their separate local
autonomy and independence.
Merits and Demerits of Federalism
Merits a Federal System
i) A Federal system encourages unity in diversity and is a very potent instrument for
national integration in plural societies. One major advantage of the federal
arrangement is that it ensures unity under conditions of diversity. In a federation,
diversity like ethnic differences, religion, language, economic structure,
education, social welfare, etc. usually exists among the component units. Federal
arrangements, therefore, are attempts at bridging these gaps or divide in order to
bring about political and social unity without destroying the identity of the
federating units. Thus, the federating units can retain their separate peculiar
identities and are not completely submerged in it.
ii) Federalism is an ideal system of government for countries like the United States,
China, Russia, India and Nigeria with a hugepopulation and territorial size. It is
not an accident that Russia, the largest country in the world with a territory of over
17 million square kilometres, covering eleven time zones and China with over 1.3
billion population, the highest in the world are federal states.
iii) Another merit of adopting a federal system of government is that it promotes
economic advantages by facilitating greater economies of scale. This is because of
a big home market for the purchase of raw materials and the sale of manufactured
goods as well as in the easy mobility of labour. Federalism also encourages the
possibility that what is available in one part can be of benefits to the other parts of
the country. In Nigeria today the non-oil producing parts of the country can
equally gain from the petroleum deposits that are in abundance in the Niger Delta
area. Similarly, the land-locked inter-land of the country can also benefit from
access to the sea via the Lagos ports without the additional burden of paying
 customs duty. This is in addition to the benefit of sharing from the proceeds of the
value-added tax. Furthermore, subjects of common interests are administered by
the centre with the result that the individual states do not have to border with the
administrative structures to support such matters.
iv) Federalism prevents the dangers inherent in a despotic central government which
absorb the powers of the other units in the federation since the division of powers
is constitutionally guaranteed. More so, in a federal system, the powers of each
level of government are clearly defined and delineated in a written constitution.
This helps to curb the centre from exceeding its authority or become autocratic.
v) Federalism facilitates the establishment of democratic institutions and wider
political participation by the citizens. In other words, more people are able to take
part in the government of the federation either at the state, region or at the local or
grass root levels of governance. This encourages the development of local talents,
which are nurtured to become national leaders in future.
vi) A Federal system of government leads to efficient administration because the
allocation and dispersal of powers to the various tiers of government help to
reduce the workload at the disposal of the inclusive government, without at the
same time overloading the federating units. By preventing administrative
overstretch. federalism is thus a deterrent against an unwieldy and complicated
administrative structure which may lead to inertia and possible collapse of
government apparatus.
vii) In a federal system, local affairs are well looked after by the government. This is
made possible by the fact that local matters are assigned to the government at the
grass root. Within a federal arrangement, local people can attend to matters like
chieftaincyand other traditional and customary issues which are peculiar to them.
For example, Sec. 7 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
assigned a wide range of local affairs to each local government council in the
fourth schedule.
viii) A federal system of government encourages healthy rivalry among the
component units, which in turn breeds varied social and economic developments.
The Nigerian federation of the first republic is a good example of this point,
because during this period, with a good and high level of leadership, the various
regional government were competing among themselves in the provision of
infrastructures and welfare facilities to their people. This brought about the
development of the regional level of governance.
ix) A federal system promotes international prestige for countries that practice it. The
components parts of a federation or the smaller federating units if left to exist
alone as autonomous states could hardly command international prestige. Though
federating units lose their individual sovereignty by coming together under one
central government, they nevertheless, stand to gain by becoming part of a larger
federation. The strength of Nigeria in Africa today, and countries like India,
Pakistan in Asia, and perhaps in the world, lies partly in their huge sizes, which
came about due to their federal structure. Indeed, the United States, China and the
former Soviet Union have been variously described as a continental-size country,
a colossus and, a behemoth in the world, respectively, as a result of huge accretion
in their sizes, consequent to their federal structure.
Demerits of a Federal System
i) The first demerit of a federal system is that it involves high cost in running the
administrative structures (i.e. government ministries departments and agencies) that
are duplicated or multiplied at all levels. This duplication is typical of countries like
the United States with 50 states and Nigeria with 36 states at present. Indeed, most of
these structures are replicated in all the 774 local government areas in the country,
with the consequent increase in recurrent spending to service these needs.
ii) The diversity of groups in a federation along ethnic, language and religious lines, if
not well managed, may create problems for a federal system. While the United States
has succeeded in forging one nation out of many, Nigeria is yet to come to term with
her diversity. The salience of ethnic solidarity groups and militias such as the Odua
Peoples’ Congress (OPC), Arewa Peoples ‘Congress (APC) and Egbesu and Bakassi
Boys in Nigeria are indicative that the country’s federal system is still being
threatened by these divisive and disruptive centrifugal forces.
iii) By the nature and dynamics of a federal system, it is also blamed for not being able
to take quick decisions. The need to strike a workable balance and compromise
among the different groups that usually inhabit a federation may impair the capacity
of the state to take quick decisions or respond promptly to issues that demand urgent
attention of the government. This problem is further worsened by the bicameral
structure of the legislature in most federal states where the concurrence of both
chambers is normally the requirement before major legislation can be passed. Added
to this is the often-rigid nature of the constitution of most federal states in which the
advantage of flexibility is lost.
iv) A federal system may also engender the uneven development of its component parts.
This may come about due to differences in resource endowments, or access to it;
inequality in educational opportunities. Because of this, states have no alternative
than to pursue different socio-economic policies and programmes which may further
intensify the differences among them. The designation of certain states as viable or
oil-rich states, or educational advantaged and others as less endowed or
disadvantaged in a federal setting like Nigeria is to underscore the unevenness in the
development pattern among them. It is not even unusual to have indigenes of states
with surplus skilled manpower to work in other states as contract staff, thereby
exacerbating the problem of indigenes-settlers dichotomy.
v) Despite the provision for division of powers among the different levels of
government, there are cases where conflict of jurisdiction may also hamper
harmonious relationships, particularly between the central government and the state,
on one hand, or between one state and the other, on the other hand. A case in point in
Nigeria, in the first instance, was the conflict of jurisdiction between the federal
government and Lagos State government over the creation of additional local
government by the latter. The other instance was the strain in inter-government
relations between the governments of Oyo and Osun states over the ownership of
Ladoke Akintola University of Technology (LAUTECH).
vi) The federal arrangement also faces the possible danger of secessions because of some
in-built mechanisms to guarantee the autonomy of the states. At times, some of these
provisions may be interpreted by overzealous leaders to pursue the agenda of
 selfdetermination. This was the experience of Nigeria during the civil war (1967-70)
and between the North and South Sudan.
vii) In the final analysis, federalism is a delicate arrangement that requires mutual
tolerance. This is why the role of the judiciary or the court is vital in a federal system
to ensure that no level encroaches on the other, and if it happens the judiciary comes
in as an arbiter.
Tiers of Government in Nigeria’s Federal Structure
Nigeria is a federation with three tiers of government. These include: the federal, state and
local governments. The Federal Government has powers over matters that affect the whole
country, while the powers of state and local government are limited to the boundaries of their
respective states and local government areas respectively. The three tiers of government
derive their powers from the constitution which spells out their functions also. They also have
legislative powers and areas of control as stipulated by the constitution. Although the three
tiers of government have distinct roles to play as entities and areas of administrative control,
they complement one another in many respects. This ensures improvement in performance
and accountability. In the Nigerian federation, therefore, every citizen lives under these three
triers of governments i.e. federal, state and local.
The most powerful tier is the federal government which consists of three organs, namely
legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch is represented by the bicameral
National Assembly, executive power is held by the president, and judicial arm is the Supreme
Court of Nigeria. Astate government is the middle tier of government in Nigeria’s federal
structure. There are 36 states in Nigeria, as well as 36 state governments. As for the Federal
Capital Territory, it has a ministry instead of a government. Like the federal government,
state governments have legislative, executive and judiciary branches. The legislative branch
is the unicameral state house of assembly, the executive arm is the Governor who is the head
of the state executive council, and the judiciary power is held by the state’s high court and
chief justice. State governments are responsible for everything that is not the federal
government’s responsibility, even though sometimes both of these tiers are involved.
The local government is the lowest tier of government in Nigeria’s federal structure. It
became the third tier from 1976. In 1979, it was included in the constitution and ipso facto
granted a constitutional status There are 774 local government areas (LGAs) in Nigeria. They
all vary in character and size. Every LGA is further divided into wards. Local governments
are responsible for small local matters, such as public health, waste disposal and so on. When
it comes to larger projects, the local governments work with their state government to achieve
results. This tier of government is meant to bring power closer to the people. Unfortunately,
in Nigeria, local governments struggle from the lack of autonomy from the state
governments, as well as from the lack of funds (Babalola, 2019; Ibeanu & Kuna, 2016).
The Nigerian Constitution, for instance, evolved three categories of power and functions to
be exercised by the three tiers of government, viz:
(i) The exclusive legislative list
(ii) The concurrent legislative list
(iii) The residual powers.
The exclusive legislative list is assigned to the federal government. While the concurrent list
contained matters on which both the federal and state governments can legislate. the
constitution goes further to set out ways of resolving conflicts that may arise in the process of
exercising such functions and powers. On the other hand, residual powers are those not
included in either the exclusive or concurrent lists. Local governments are empowered to
make laws on residual powers.
CONFEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM
Meaning of Confederation
A confederation has been defined as an administrative cum constitutional arrangement in
which two or more sovereign and independent states agree to come together to have a central
but weak government. Put differently, the term confederation applies to the union of states,
which is less binding in its character than a federation. A confederation is a union of states
with a commonly recognised authority in certain matters affecting the whole, and in respect
of external relations. Confederation is a league or union of many sovereign states for a
common purpose. In principle, the states in a confederal structure would not lose their
separate identities but would retain the right of secession. In practice, though this right might
be difficult to exercise and the constituent units of a confederation might appear to be little
different from those of any other federal states. But confederation differs essentially from a
federation in that it is a league of sovereign states, unlike the latter (federation) where the
component states give up their sovereignty in favour of the new state, or even where the
centre can create more states, as it has been from the example of the Nigerian federation.
In a confederation, power resides more with the component states rather than the centre. In
other words, there is a weak centre and strong component parts. The United States adopted a
confederal structure in the early years of her independence. But the structure was later
rejected by the conferees at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention on the ground that it
was “weak at the centre and strong at the circumference”. Other examples of confederal
states apart from the failed United States’ experience include the United Netherlands in 1579,
the German constitutions of 1815 to 1867 and 1867 to 1871(before and after the unification
of Prussia with other German states).

Features of Confederation
i) Right to Secede In a confederation, the component units have the right to secede from the
arrangement. This is not the case in a federation where any attempt by any or a combination
of the federating states to secede is met with resistance. This was the case in the United States
between 1861 and 1865 when the attempt by 13 southern states was militarily resisted by
Abraham Lincoln. A similar case occurred in Nigeria when Yakubu Gowon, then Nigeria’s
Military Head of State forced the then Eastern Region of the country back into the federation.
ii) The autonomy of the Federating States Another feature of a confederation is that the states
within the confederal structure would not lose their separate identities through the political
arrangement but will still retain their distinct separate independence. In other words, the
component units are autonomous in all spheres of influence except in defence, external
relations, currency and a few other subjects conceded to the central authority.
iii) Supremacy lies with the confederates
The supreme power belongs to the co-ordinate states. Therefore, the coordinate States
dominate the central government as the constitution is usually not rigid since most
confederations are run based on agreements reached by the states.
iv) Weak Central Authority The central authority is usually weak in a confederation while the
units are stronger and more powerful. The experience of countries like the United States,
Senegal and Gambia under a confederation, and Nigeria where the model was also suggested,
will be used to illustrate this point in the subsequent units.
Merits and Demerits of Confederation
Merits
i) Confederation protects countries that shelter under the arrangement from foreign
invasion. Weak states can enjoy better defence militarily against foreign powers or
aggression from neighbouring States. This consideration was uppermost in the mind
of Dauda Jawara of the Gambia in the early 1980s when he forged a confederal
arrangement with Senegal, then known as Sene- Gambia. But the confederation did
not last long.
ii) Confederation has economic utility. The case of the Hanseatic League which was
established in Europe during the Middle Ages to promote greater commercial
interactions among the states concerned is a good example.
iii) In large countries, it saves minority nationalities from domination by majority ethnic
groups since each state in a confederation is sovereign. This was the major reason
why the former Eastern region of Nigeria then under Col. Emeka Odumegu-Ojukwu
spoke in favour of confederation at the Aburi meeting in Ghana. His preference was
predicated on the belief that confederation would give the Igbo nation more freedom
to manoeuvre in a country where they felt threatened.
Demerits
i) Confederation is a very loose and fragile system of government. This is because each state
that makes up the confederation is autonomous with its governmental machinery. This gives
the liberty to any member state to pull out any time it so desires.
ii) Confederation has been criticised for serving as a breeding ground of intrigues and centres
of rivalries. This is because, as Argawal (1994) pointed out, a strong and powerful member
state often establishes its hegemony over others and exploits them to further its own ends.
This was true of Prussia before the unification of Germany. Prussia then, the biggest and
most powerful of German states exploited others that were weak and unviable.
iii) The relationship between the central and confederal government is not usually well
defined. This has often led to disagreement between member states of the confederacy.
iv) Despite its theoretical attraction to leaders of a few states, in reality, a confederation has
often proven a difficult and cumbersome political system to manage. This is why it has not
endured for long in the few countries where it was practised. Indeed, the experience has
shown that confederation has either failed in a few states that practised it, while the
authorities in other states like Nigeria, where suggestions were made in that direction spurned
it. General Gowon flatly rejected confederation as an option for Nigeriain1967.
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF POLITICAL INTERACTION
In any political system, whether democratic or not, people develop and express their opinions
on a wide range of issues. They also try to take part in and shape the decisions that affect
their lives. An increase in citizen participation is therefore a hallmark of political
development. This module, which is sub-divided into four units, will examine the
instrumentalities of political interaction.
Political Parties/Pressure Groups; Political Parties as Instruments of Political Interaction in
Nigeria; The Political Roles of Pressure Groups in Nigeria;
POLITICAL PARTIES/PRESSURE GROUPS
Political parties and pressure groups are very important in the contemporary state system
because they give meaning to the democratic process as important institutional components
of liberal democracy. Thus, this unit will examine the meaning and types of political parties
and pressure groups. Involved in this analysis is the explanation of the primary functions of
political parties and pressure groups as instruments of political interaction and participation.
Meaning, Types and Functions of Political Parties
Meaning of a Political Party A political party is an organised group of people with at least
roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its
candidates elected to public office. The purpose of the political party is to get candidates
elected to public office. In a sustainable and well-functioning democracy, political parties are
deeply and durably rooted in specific substructures of society. To this end, they can link the
governmental institutions to the elements of the civil society in a free and fair society and are
regarded as necessary for the effective functioning of a democratic political system. The
presence of the political party is a healthy situation for a democratic society since it allows
people to make a more evolved and effective decision. In a broader perspective, a political
party is a means through which the people can speak to the government and have a say in the
process of governance (Singh, 2014).
Types of Party System There are three types of party systems
: i) One-Party System
ii) Two-Party System
iii) Multi-Party System
One-Party System In a one-party system, there is no competition in this system. Here, the
lone party nominates the candidates and the voters have only two choices, that is, either not to
vote at all or to write ‘yes’ or ‘no’ against the name of the candidates nominated by the party.
Such a political system was prominent in authoritarian regimes and communist countries such
as North Korea and Cuba. Before the collapse of communism, this system was also prevalent
in USSR.
Two-Party System In a two-party system, the power alternate between two major dominant
parties. So, for winning the elections, the winner will have to get the maximum number of
votes. So, the smaller parties tend to merge with the bigger parties or they drop out of
elections. Such a system prevails in Canada and Great Britain, in which two parties are
holding the maximum numbers of seats. Nigeria experimented a two-party system in the
botched Third Republic when the military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida created two
political parties: The Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the National Republican
Convention (NRC).
Multi-Party System The most common type is the multi-party system. In such a system,
there are three or more parties which can gain control of the government separately or in a
coalition. If no party achieves a clear majority of the legislative seats, then several parties join
forces and form a coalition government. Countries like India and Nigeria follow a multi-party
system. Some people are of the view that a multi-party system often leads to political
instability in a country.
Functions of Political Parties
In a democratic society, political parties perform the following key roles, among others:
(i) Soliciting and articulating public policy priorities and civic needs and problems as
identified by members and supporters
(ii) Recruiting and training candidates for public office;
(iii) Socialising and educating voters and citizens in the functioning of the political
and electoral system and the general political values
(iv) Balancing opposing demands and converting into general policies
(v) Channelling public opinion from citizens to government
It is noteworthy; however, that though political parties fulfil many vital roles and perform
several functions in a democratic society, recruiting candidates for public office is one of the
most important functions that political parties perform. An important goal of political parties
is to gain control of the government and to do this, parties must work to recruit candidates for
all elected offices
Meaning, Types and Functions of Pressure Group
Meaning of Pressure Groups Pressure groups are informal political institutions which seek to
influence decision-making. They neither stand for elective positions nor
aim to capture political to form a government. They differ from parties because they are not
entirely political even though they are organisations which are to a certain degree concerned
with politics. Put differently, although they share some characteristics with political parties,
pressure groups are not aiming to exercise political power directly. They are agencies of
representation and participation as well as mechanisms for the expression of interest and
opinion(Singh, 2014). They facilitate popular involvement in politics. Some of the active
pressure groups in Nigeria include: the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU),
Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Nigerian Union of
Journalists (NUJ) among others.
Types of Pressure Groups There are two types of pressure groups:
(i) Sectional Pressure Groups (ii) Promotional Pressure Groups
Sectional lobby groups include self-interest groups such as trade unions; business and
farming associations; churches; ethnic associations; pensioner groups; and returned service
personnel. On the other hand, promotional lobby groups promote particular causes, beliefs
or values such as: conservation; women’s issues; Aboriginal; civil; or moral rights.
Functions of Pressure Groups Pressure groups are groups of like-minded people who seek to
influence the government on a particular issue. The primary functions of pressure groups
include:
i) Pressure groups try to make the government more attentive to the needs of the
people. This is because as groups with many members sometimes nationally spread,
they command more respect than individuals who may be fighting for similar causes.
ii) Pressure groups provide specialised and expert information to the government on
their interests and explain government policies to their members and the general
public. Thus, they are an important link between the government and the people.
iii) They help to educate their members and the whole society on their fundamental
human and political rights, and some government policies.
iv) The political education and consciousness of citizens are promoted through the
activities of pressure groups.
v) They promote the economic stability of the country through their useful advice to the
government on economic policies. An example is the Nigerian Association of
Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (NACCIMA).
vi) They promote certain general welfare services.
vii) They promote and protect the interest of their members. For example, the Academic
Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) got a special salary scale approved for its
members.
Importance of Pressure Groups Active and well-oriented pressure groups are an asset in a
democratic society because they influence government policy in the right circumstances. In
an ideal political setting, pressure groups are important for the following reason
: i) They promote discussion and debate and mobilise public opinion on key issues
ii) They perform a role in educating citizens about specific issues
iii) Pressure groups can enhance democratic participation, pluralism and diversity
iv) They provide an important access point for those seeking redress of grievance
v) They represent minorities who cannot represent themselves
vi) Pressure groups are an important and valuable source of specialist information/ expertise
for an overloaded legislature and civil service
vii) They act as a check and balance to the power of executive government
Strategies Used by Pressure Groups to achieve their Objectives Pressure groups may use a
variety of methods to pursue their requirements. These include:
(i) Lobbying state members and the Parliament via petitions, letters and deputations.
(ii) Consulting with ministers or senior public servants.
(iii) Hiring professional lobbyists.
(iv) Taking legal action through injunctions or appeals to higher courts.
(v) Campaigning for, or opposing, certain candidates at elections.
(vi) Demonstrating outside Parliament and government offices or marching in the streets.
(vii) Using the industrial muscle of strikes for political purposes.