Parliamentary Regime In Africa: An Alternative To Political Stability

I do not have the answer to every political question that shapes our society. That is the steady reason why I keep writing political essays. I am in the quest for those political answers. In this article that I am writing about, I want to address a particular issue on African constitutional politics. Indeed, As an African individual, I have seen my continent facing numerous political perplexities and instabilities. But why is that? One thing that I am deeply aware of, is the constitutional conflict between the presidential and the parliamentary regime.

Most African sovereignties have adopted a presidential regime since their independence. However, The facts illuminate the point that presidential regimes have caused more political damages than they have provided societal stability. Political stability is quintessential for economic growth and economic growth cannot eventuate if political stability is not implemented and upheld.

I believe that African governments shall attempt a new kind of political regime, a regime upon which political stability would be delivered by popular sovereignty. I believe that the parliamentary regime is not necessarily the best solution to eradicate political turbulences, but I am convinced that it is the most effective solution to at least loosen the political contentions that drain African society.

The problem with the presidential regime is that it attributes an extensive amount of political power to the executive branch, whose the president is the leader. That much political power concentrated in the hands of one single individual always result into tyranny. It’s unsurprising to witness that most of our African presidents or heads of state displayed a dictatorial behavior. I stand against presidential regimes in African politics because the people are deprived of their most fundamental rights. These rights are confiscated by the sovereign (president) who does not hesitate to use coercion if necessary to resent the citizens who are unsatisfied with his policies.

For almost sixty years of “independence,” African regimes have perpetuated the use of presidential regime, by constantly changing the constitution when it suits them. That is the reason why African politics needs a change in which parliamentary power become the main political regime that guides society.

In a parliamentary regime, the leader of the executive branch is quite powerless. If we look at the government of the Republic of South Africa, or the constitutional monarchy in England, we observe that their political regime is dominated by parliamentary politics. In a parliamentary regime, political power is vest by the legislative branch. The legislative branch, at least in theory, reflects and represents the popular sovereignty. It retains the power to make laws and especially retains the power to choose the leader of the executive branch. 

As a matter of fact, parliamentary politics calls upon the electoral college, which means that the representatives and senators vote to choose the leader of the executive branch who has the sole duty to execute the laws voted by the parliament in the name of the people. In other words, parliamentary politics substantiates representative democracy (indirect democracy).

In parliamentary politics, the citizen is less involved in the business of government because he [the citizen] has consented his power to vote to the legislature, and the legislature handles all government matters through the adoption and the removal of legislation. Finally, I must add that, in a parliamentary regime, the populace is less worried about who the leader of the executive should be since the latter has no real political power. It substantially decreases the political tensions that could occur during election years if it was a presidential regime.