The rubber stamp fallacy — by Kayode Adebiyi

I honestly don’t know where people get this idea that the Legislative arm of government has to be antagonistic towards the Executive before it can qualify as a good legislature. Nigerians sometimes have some very strange political understanding, and I struggle to get my head around these issues.

Why should a ruling party in government, which also has a majority in the Legislative arm, be at loggerheads with the Executive? Why should people think the National Assembly must fight the Executive to demonstrate that it is working and is not a rubber stamp? Why should a properly crafted Executive bill, designed to address national challenges and advance the country’s development, not be supported and passed into law by the NASS?

I was watching a political analyst on television as usual, and he said he hopes the next National Assembly will not be a rubber stamp. What exactly do they mean by a rubber stamp?

There is something fundamentally wrong with this argument. Even in the most established democracies, political parties fight tooth and nail during election campaigns to secure majority control of their respective legislative chambers. Why? Because they understand the importance of having a legislative majority in implementing their electoral promises, passing their policies into law and delivering on their programmes for the progress and development of the people.

Look at the United States, the United Kingdom and other developed democracies. Political parties invest enormous resources and political capital in winning legislative seats because they know that having a majority in the legislature makes governance considerably easier. It does not mean the legislature is expected to become an enemy of the Executive, nor does it mean legislators should surrender their independence. It simply means that there is an opportunity for ideological alignment, cooperation and the smooth implementation of the government’s agenda.

There is a huge difference between constructive legislative oversight and needless political confrontation. Unfortunately, some people seem unable to distinguish between the two.
Let us even look at Nigeria’s political history.

During President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration, the National Assembly cooperated with the Executive in passing several robust and developmental bills into law. It supported many of the government’s policies because both arms understood that governance required cooperation.

However, when the infamous Third Term agenda reared its ugly head, the National Assembly took a national and patriotic position against it. And this was despite the fact that the majority of its members belonged to the same PDP as President Obasanjo. They did not need to become enemies of the President to demonstrate their independence. They simply stood their ground on an issue they considered contrary to the national interest.

The same thing happened during the administration of the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.

The National Assembly was largely cooperative with the Executive and supported the administration’s programmes. However, when Yar’Adua travelled abroad for medical treatment, failed to formally transmit power to his Vice-President and remained out of communication for months, the country was plunged into a constitutional and political crisis.

What did the National Assembly do?

Despite the fact that the ruling PDP also controlled the majority in the National Assembly, legislators took a national and patriotic position and adopted the Doctrine of Necessity in February 2010, allowing Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan to discharge the functions of Acting President.

These two historical examples demonstrate something very important: legislative independence does not have to manifest itself through perpetual hostility towards the Executive. A legislature can cooperate with a President when the government’s policies are in the national interest and still stand firmly against that same President when circumstances demand it.

That is what responsible governance looks like.

Of course, the oversight responsibilities of the National Assembly must be taken seriously. Legislative committees must be thorough in scrutinising government activities. Ministers, permanent secretaries and heads of government agencies must be called upon to explain their stewardship. Every naira appropriated in the national budget must be accounted for, and public resources must be judiciously utilised.

Nobody is suggesting that legislators should abandon these constitutional responsibilities simply because their party controls the Executive.

But oversight is not antagonism. Accountability is not hostility. Independence is not the same as confrontation.

I find it particularly disturbing when people celebrate the National Assembly for rejecting policies and initiatives that could positively affect citizens and advance national development simply because they believe such rejection makes the President look bad.

How does that benefit the country?

If an Executive bill is properly conceived, addresses a genuine national need and has the potential to improve the lives of citizens, why should legislators reject it merely to prove that they are independent? What exactly are they proving, and to whose benefit?

An antagonistic and perpetually confrontational legislature is not in the interest of any government or nation. When the two arms of government turn governance into a contest of egos and political supremacy, the people ultimately suffer, and development suffers with them.

The legislature is not an opposition party to the Executive. Both are constitutionally established arms of the same government, with distinct but complementary responsibilities.

We need to move away from this rather simplistic understanding of democracy where every disagreement is celebrated as evidence of good governance and every instance of cooperation is dismissed as rubber-stamping.

Governance is not a boxing contest. It is not about who can frustrate whom or who can score the next political point.

It is about delivering results, protecting the national interest and improving the lives of the people.

For goodness’ sake, governance is not fighting!

Selah!