In a publication released in 2006 with the title, Parliament and Democracy In the Twenty-First Century: A Guide to Good Practice, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) identified what it called the “democracy paradox,” which it said, agrees with the postulations of Italian political theorist, Norberto Bobbio, who recognized what he called “the broken promises of democracy.” In that publication, the IPU stated that democracy, as both an idea and a set of political institutions has triumphed in most countries. Notwithstanding its global appeal within the ‘old’ and ‘new’ democratic fronts, the global parliamentary body reports that there is a “considerable disillusionment” with the results of democracy in practice. It reported that this disillusionment is not restricted to democratic practice in the old democracies and the new and emerging ones. According to the IPU, the paradox is all about the contrast between what (democracy) promised and what eventually comes out.
The IPU Said: “Yet it is a contract that appears particularly acute in the present age, when democracies are called on to grapple with forces that often seem beyond their control, affecting their security, their economies, and the livelihood and well-being of their citizens.”
In seeking a way out of what looks like a democratic jungle, the IPU reverted to the parliaments and declared that as a body that represents the diversity of societies, parliaments have a key role to play in addressing the paradox. It further declared that “parliaments embody the will of the people in government, and carry all their expectations that democracy will be truly responsive to their needs while helping to solve the pressing problems that confront them in their daily lives.”
The IPU further justified its trust in the parliament by emphasizing its centrality this way: “As the elected body that represents the society in its diversity, parliaments have a unique responsibility for reconciling the conflicting interests and expectations of different groups and communities through the democratic means of dialogue and compromise. As the key legislative organ, parliaments have the task of adapting society’s laws to its rapidly changing needs and circumstances. As the body entrusted with the oversight of government. They are responsible for ensuring that governments are fully accountable to the people.”
Of all the roles and functions attributed to the parliament, the duty of holding governments fully accountable to the people appears the key function that could help the parliament resolve the democracy paradox.
Since the restart of democratic rule in Nigeria in 1999, the budget, which is a statement of the government’s projections on public income and expenditure has remained the focal tool by which the executive comes in contact with the legislature and a tool, aside lawmaking, through which government can be held accountable. But since 1999, budgets have never been balanced, thus attracting derisive appellations like an annual ritual.
A former Chairman of the Senate Appropriation Committee once held a copy of the budget and said; ‘see this document, you cannot understand it. Even we that prepare it hardly understand’. He was not displaying the parliamentarians’ ignorance about the figures contained in the budget book, he was only emphasizing the essence of why budgets don’t deliver the goods. I had asked him whether a country needed to run a deficit budget. What the appropriation chairman was simply telling me was encapsulated in the paradox of democracy. The question of promising so much in a book of close to 2,000 pages on public expenditure, and delivering so meagre at the end of the day.
Happenings in the National Assembly in the last week have tended to emphasize the democracy paradox and the conclusions of the IPU that the parliament can come to the rescue. On Wednesday and Thursday of last week, the National Assembly had the opportunity to play one of its key roles of holding the government accountable to the people, in partial fulfillment of the conditions precedent to the resolution of the democracy paradox.
First was the statement credited to the Chairman Senate Committee on Appropriation, Senator Olamilekan Adeola, which expressed displeasure of the National Assembly at the poor implementation of the 2024 federal budget. In a statement by Kayode Odunaro, the senator’s Special Adviser, Adeola described the performance of the 2024 budget as dismal at a 25 percent execution rate for capital expenditure.
“The position of the National Assembly followed the report of the economic team led by Mr. Wale Edun, the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, showing that overall, so far 2024 budget performance was 43%, with recurrent expenditure achieving 100% while the capital budget only managed 25% performance,” the statement read.
The senator equally demanded the drastic reduction of the ratio of recurrent expenditure to capital from the present level of about 80 percent for recurrent and 20 percent for capital to at least 60 percent for recurrent and 40 percent for capital votes because capital projects are the growth areas that impact the people directly.
A day after that statement, the Senate was host to a drama of some sort, whereby the Minister of Finance and Coordination Minister for the Economy, Mr Wale Edun could not openly provide details of the government’s savings from the fuel subsidy removal. The Senator representing Bauchi Central, Abdul Ningi, had posed several questions which Edun found difficult to answer.
Ningi had said: “What is the budget performance so far in the 2024 fiscal year, particularly in terms of the capital expenditure? We haven’t heard from the minister how much has been saved from the removal of fuel subsidy and how much has been expended.
“We also haven’t heard from the minister about the debt servicing. How much have we actually used to service our debts in 2004? How much are we expecting to service the debt in 2005?
“Finally, will the Minister of Finance guarantee that the extension of the capital component of the 2024 budget to June 30, 2025, guarantee the desired results in terms of implementation that currently has a very low percentage?”
His questions speak directly to the essence of the budget itself while tagging along with the issue of democracy paradox.
The Minister could not hide his discomfort and immediately requested a closed session. Edun said: “Are we in a closed-door session? If we are not in a closed-door session, I will humbly seek one so as to provide detailed explanations to the questions asked.”
Though the Senate Committee granted the request, thereby denying the public clear information about service delivery under this administration thus far, the whole story had earlier been unveiled in the statement earlier released by Senator Adeola,
If the budget can only make provision of 20 percent for capital votes, while 80 percent goes for recurrent expenditure, no one needs the services of a mathematics teacher to know who holds the fattest part of the yam, people, or the government. But upon that, the 20 percent capital votes which stands to benefit the people, has only recorded 25 percent implementation for 2024. Most years, it struggles to close at 30 percent.
What this shows is that the national budget has been servicing the interests of the government and its workers all along. What is in it for the people is not only negligible but is always handled with levity.
With that, the paradox of democracy is further established. If a government’s performance in caring for the needs of the populace in terms of roads and general infrastructure will stand at 25 percent, in a year, how do we answer the question of democracy’s responsiveness to the needs of that people? How do we handle the question about democracy promising much and delivering little? If democracy must deliver the goods, the government at the state and federal levels must pay attention to the needs of the people.
Questions to be answered include, what percentage of the budget is allotted to capital votes, what percentage is set aside for recurrent and what is the performance pattern over time? From all we have seen over the years, the recurrent expenditure side of the national budget always achieves 100 percent success, while officials drag things that affect capital votes. If a child who scores 30 percent in an examination cannot run to the warm embrace of his parents, I wonder what gives our administrators the confidence to keep beating their chests as leaders of the people. It is not debatable that operators of democratic power must find practical solutions to the democratic paradox, here and now, if they would not stand accused of leading the people astray.
(Published in the Sunday Tribune of January 12, 2025)
