An address on Representative Government: Theory and Practice by Chief Obafemi Awolowo to Students' Parliament at Ahmadu Bello University, Dec 6, 1975

IT gives me double pleasure to address this parliament. In the first place, it is always stimulating to have an opportunity of this kind, when one is able to seize it, of addressing a gathering of intelligent, critical and discerning youths. In the second place, it is refreshing, after a decade of electoral abeyance, to talk to an assembly of duly elected people, albeit, in this case, a students' parliament.

In spite of the socio-political aberrations which black Africa as a whole has been experiencing during the past ten years or so, it will be agreed by those who have given thought to the matter that a freely-elected parliament is an essential of a civilized, dynamic, free and stable society. It is the only organ in any society, which can claim to comprise the accredited representatives of the people, and can, therefore, legitimately make laws for, and supervise the administration of the affairs of the people. It is also the most effective and acceptable organ which mankind has evolved for the promotion, at all times, of what Lincoln pithily described as 'the government of the people, by the people, for the people.'

Democracy is, in my humble view, the best form of government. This very assertion implies that it is not the only form of government; and I make it in the face of weighty denunciations by Plato, the father of political philosophy, and Aristotle. Both of them have expressed poor opinion of democracy as a form of government, presumably, as practiced in ancient Greece.

In the STATESMAN, Plato claims that democracy is 'in every respect weak and unable to do either any great good or any great evil.' And Aristotle, writing in the same vein in his POLITICS, described democracy as 'the most tolerable of the three perverted forms of government in contrast to oligarchy and tyranny.'

As I have just said, democracy is not the only form of government. It has had powerful rivals down the ages such as gerontocracy, autocracy, absolutism, tyranny, despotism, fascism, authoritarianism and oligarchy.

For purposes of clarity and scientific discourse, all forms of government can be grouped under three main heads: autocracy, oligarchy, and democracy. Aristotle made a two-fold classification from which I most respectfully differ. Says he: 'There are generally thought to be two principal forms - democracy and oligarchy: the rest are only variations of these.'

If you accept my classification, you must begin to do a rigorous intellectual exercise from now on with a view to ascertaining, which of the three is best. I have already told you of my own standpoint, namely: that, of all the three, democracy is the best. I will now proceed to demonstrate in outline why I hold this view. In doing this, it is my intention to consider each of the three forms one by one. But before doing so, and in order that we may have a clear understanding of the comparative virtues or vices of the three, it is necessary that we should have a quick look at one basic principle.

A study of some of the writings of political philosophers from Plato and Aristotle, through Hegel, Hobbes and Locke, to Marx, Engels and Lenin, would appear to suggest that all philosophies or theories have certain basic underlying principles in common: the nature of man, and the concept of the structure and origin of the State. The basic principle with which we would concern ourselves in this address is the one relating to the nature of man.

Various political philosophers have ascribed different attributes to the nature of man.
Plato thinks that the ordinary men are both selfish and rational, and that all men should be viewed as potential tyrants. Aristotle speaks of the 'wickedness of human nature.'

In THE CITIZEN, Hobbes writes:'The dispositions of men are naturally such, that except they be restrained through fear of some coercive power, every man will distrust each other.'
And in the LEVIATHAN, he declares that men love liberty, but they love to dominate their fellowmen as well.

Locke holds the view that man is not evil, but inherently good. For Marx and Engels, human nature depends on the prevailing patterns and conditions of production and distribution of wealth. These brief references are enough to show that the nature of man is one of the underlying principles of political philosophy. I make no attempt to improve upon what Plato and others have said on the subject. But I want to try and supplement their views.

Human nature can be viewed from the standpoints of biology, psychology, religion, mysticism, and politics. But since the province of this talk is representative government, we must follow the examples of the great political philosophers and confine ourselves to the realm of psychology.
The first thing to note about man is that, apart from his body, he has a mind. Through the objective and subjective processes of his mind, he can consciously perceive objects and interpret them; he can also, through the same processes, make decisions and, by the exercise of his will, execute them.

The second thing to note is that he also has instincts. According t McDougall, OUTLINE OF PSYCHOLOGY, 'An instinct is an innate disposition which determines the organism to perceive any object of a certain class, and to experience in its presence a certain emotional excitement and an impulse to action which find expression in a specific mode of behavior in relation to the object.' Put in simpler terms, instincts are innate or inborn natural forces, which compel the individual to act in specific ways in certain circumstances.

It will be seen that whilst the individual consciously controls and directs the objective and subjective processes of his mind, he has the compelling tendency to be controlled and directed by his instincts. He must give expression to his instincts; whether the expression is positive or negative is another matter. If he does not, he will either perish or his personality will be seriously damaged. In other words, the compelling promptings, passions and emotions of instincts can only be repressed or suppressed by the individual or the human race at his or its own peril.

Leslie Weatherhead in PSYCHOLOGY AND LIFE details FOURTEEN manifestations of the three instincts of SELF (10), SEX (2), and HERD (2). Of the fourteen manifestations, TWO are more germane to our present discussion. They are ACQUISITION and COMBAT. They both come under the generic instinct of SELF. Nature compels man to acquire or desire - to desire food, shelter, clothing, power, etc; all these things are essential for the survival of the individual or of the human race. But nature also compels him to fight with all the means at his disposal, if anything should stand between him and he objects of his desires, or threatens what he has already acquired.

Now, it would appear that all political philosophers are agreed that OF ALL HUMAN DESIRES THE DESIRE FOR POWER IS THE STRONGEST. In other words, OF ALL THE TEN MANIFESTATIONS OF THE INSTINCT OF SELF, THE MOST POWERFUL IS ACQUISITION - ACQUISITION OF POWER.

Let us make no pretence about it, every human being loves power, power over his fellowmen in the State, or in business enterprises; or, failing that; power over his wife and children, or over his brothers, sisters, and friends; or, in the case of children, power over his playmates. Of these categories of power, the desire for power over ones fellowmen is the strongest. Those who are, for the time being, kept out of this category of power will make a bid for it, as soon as they believe they have the necessary means of combat to attain their ends. The means of combat chosen will depend on the rules for periodic change in the power structure, or on lack of such rules.

Having disposed of the basic principle relating to the nature of man, we will now proceed to describe, in outline, the characteristic features of AUTOCRACY, OLIGARCHY, and DEMOCRACY.

AUTOCRACY is a form of government in which political power is vested in one man. OLIGARCHY, on the other hand, is a form of government in which political power is vested in a few people. Whilst DEMOCRACY is a form of government in which political power is vested in the entire people.

Practically, all the governments in Africa today, including South Africa and Rhodesia, are autocratic and oligarchial in their forms. It is claimed for these forms of government that they are more dynamic, quick and precise in taking decisions, and equally swift and more thorough in implementing them.

There are no entrenched rules of the game regarding the modes of accession and succession to power.

Most of the time, the Autocrat accedes to and remains in power at his own will without the pre-consent of the rest of the people. So do the Oligarchs. And once in power, they employ various devices and machinations to keep others out. Some of them do make a pretence to democracy, by rigging electoral processes as a means of prolonging their tenure of office.
As we have seen, whatever the Autocrats or the Oligarchs do, human nature cannot attune itself to a state of affairs in which it is permanently excluded from the exercise of power. The result is that, wherever autocracy or oligarchy prevails, there is an built-in instability which erupts in unexpected violent change of power structure, which change is sometimes bloody, and occasionally bloodless.

It is conceded that, under autocracy or oligarchy, there is a good deal of dynamism as well as quickness and precision in decision--making and its implementation. But because of the absence of those checks and balances which can only be supplied by a wide diffusion in the exercise of power, and by the free expression of public opinions concerning the affairs of State, those at the helm of these forms of government, however good they may be initially, sooner or later lose their original sense of mission, and degenerate.

When the degeneracy reaches a certain level, or when those who also aspire to autocratic or oligarchical power have acquired adequate means of combat, a sudden and frightful change of guards or revolution is brought about. With the new change begins a new cycle: starting with rapid ascent; then slow descent, then precipitous decline; and again a sudden frightful damage.
As we have noted, democracy is a form of government in which power is vested in the entire people.

In the ancient Greek City States, attempts were made, without much success as the writings of Plato and Aristotle clearly depict to practice pure or direct democracy, under which all the citizens of a City-State assembled to deliberate and decide on their affairs.
It goes without saying that in any modern state which has a large population and has a variety of complex problems, it is inadvisable and, in any event, impossible to practice pure or direct democracy.

The problem which confronts the protagonists of democracy has been this: to fashion an institution or institutions which will ensure the participation of the entire people in the affairs of their government without such a government losing in operational and functional dispatch and effectiveness.

The democrats have found solution to this problem by the device of INDIRECT DEMOCRACY OR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

Under this form of government there are definite and entrenched rules of the game.
Periodically, the entire people are allowed to choose those who will be entrusted with law making and the administration of their affairs, at local, State and Federal levels, as the case may be. Only the adults are eligible to go to the polls to cast their votes. But it is well known that all non-adult articulate citizens do play a tremendous part in influencing the outcome of the elections.

A period of TWO to FIVE years has been chosen in civilized countries for the tenure of such elected persons. The reason for this is not far to seek. TWO to FIVE years is not too long a period to wait to change the representatives and have new ones, if necessary.
To ensure that the elected representatives are the truly accredited representatives of the people, it is essential that elections are conducted in a free and fair atmosphere. An atmosphere in which individuals and ideological groups are quite free, unhindered, and uninhibited in the expression and communication of their views to the people who have the duty eventually to decide who and which of the ideological groups can best represent their interests in making laws for them and in administering their affairs in the ensuing four or five years. Where such an atmosphere as this is non-existent, then whatever emerges will not be a truly representative government.

Furthermore, it is impossible that during the four or five years of office, the elected representatives may become remiss in the faithful observance of their mandate. To these ends, checks and balances have also been devised, though they are not always in frequent use.
There is the system of RECALL, under which an elected representatives who persistently violates his mandate can be made to vacate his seat in the Assembly or Parliament, if a prescribed number of electors from his constituency make representation to that effect.
There is what is known as the INITIATIVE. In this case, a prescribed number of the people in the State or Federation can make representation that a particular law should be enacted. And when they do, the Assembly or Parliament will be obliged to initiate processes for the enactment of such a law.

There is also a system of REFERENDUM. The Constitution may provide that certain matters should be submitted to the people for their decision in a REFERENDUM. On the other hand, an Assembly or Parliament which is sensitive to the people's wishes may refer a major issue of policy to the people for their decision in a REFERENDUM. This was done recently in Britain on the issue as to whether or not Britain should join the European Common Market.

The most powerful check of all is that which is supplied by public opinion freely expressed through the press and the mass media, and on the rostrums, subject only to the restraints which may, from time to time, be imposed within the well-known ambit of the Rule of Law.
I think I have said enough on this subject - REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT: THEORY AND PRACTICE - to stimulate your thoughts and even provoke a debate among you. I do not seek conformity, but I do intend to generate a process, which may lead to a better understanding of an important and topical subject, and of the experiment in representative or parliamentary government on which you have embarked.

I would like to end by congratulating the members of your parliament on their success at the polls. I hope that, during your tenure, you will be faithful to your mandate.

The most powerful check of all is that which is supplied by public opinion freely expressed through the press and the mass media, and on the rostrums, subject only to the restraints which may, from time to time, be imposed within the well-known ambit of the Rule of Law.

Let us make no pretence about it, every human being loves power, power over his fellowmen in the State, or in business enterprises; or, failing that; power over his wife and children, or over his brothers, sisters, and friends; or, in the case of children, power over his playmates. Of these categories of power, the desire for power over ones fellowmen is the strongest.