Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Compare and Contrast the Political System of Nigeria and the Uk

Powerful Essays
1310 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Compare and Contrast the Political System of Nigeria and the Uk
Compare and contrast the political system in the UK with the political system in your country of origin. Clearly indicate your home country.
The Oxford Dictionary, defined politics as ‘the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power’. Therefore political systems are the processes involved in decision making and the governing of nations. The purpose of this essay is to discuss the political system of both the UK and Nigeria, what it entails and also critically discuss their similarities and differences.
A brief history of the political system of the UK in the eleventh century shows that it has not always been the way it presently is. The monarchy was all powerful, absolute and ruled without a representative of the people, chosen by the people. This gradually came to an end with an evolution that started in the year ‘1215 when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta which involved him sharing power with the barons. This is regarded as the first statement of citizen rights in the world’ (Darlington, 2013). The first model of parliament was formed by King Edward the 1st in 1295. And in 1341the present day bi-cameral (House of Lords and Commons) style of parliament was formed, making the UK a kind of Democracy (Ibid).
For this reason, the Monarch in the British system of government does not have political powers. The Queen is the head of state with a prime minister as the head of government, making it a constitutional monarchy. As a constitutional monarchy, the government in power governs in the name of her majesty. Officials that constitute this government are placed into power through elections apart from the members of the House of Lords. The members of the House of Lords, are people of royal breeding who have either inherited their position, had been appointed by the Queen. ‘Since 1999, the UK government has shared executive powers with the devolved governments of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly’ (Orange,2009). The United Kingdom even though a democracy, is one of the few nations without a written constitution. There are three types of members of the House of Lords; ‘Bishops from the Church of England, nobility (British honours system) and Law Lords (Judges). Its members are not elected and appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister’ (Ibid).
The party system in the UK can be dated back to the eighteenth century with the emergence of the conservative party. There are three main political parties in the UK: the Conservatives, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats which was the product of the merging of the liberal party and the social democratic party. Some of the not so popular parties are: ‘the Plaid Cymru (founded in Wales in 1925) and the Scottish National Party (founded in 1934). In Northern Ireland there are a number of parties. They include the Ulster Unionist Party, formed in the early part of this century; the Democratic Unionist Party, founded in 1971 by a group which broke away from the Ulster Unionists; and the Social Democratic and Labour Party, founded in 1970’ (britannia.com/Gov./).
Elections in the UK are held every five years although it is subsequent to change with the emergence of a new government as the UK has no written constituting. The present coalition government is motioning for the election of some members of the House of Lords. The leader of the party with the most seats in the house of parliament becomes the leader of that government i.e. the prime minister. Other than the house of parliament which is in Westminster, London, there are three other assemblies. They are: The Scottish Parliament, The Welsh Assembly and The Northern Ireland Assembly. Apart from Wales which has the same legal system as England so cannot make any judicial decisions, the other two countries can (Darlington, 2013).

Nigeria being an ex-colony of the United Kingdom did not have democracy even after she gained her independence from the UK. The ideology of democracy started in the year 1999 after the end of the military regime. There was a general election and former President Olusegun Obasanjo was elected executive president. Although he was not the first civilian president of the country, he was the first after the over throw of the military regime. Even though the country was colonised by the British, she copied the American system of government which is the Federal system and has a written constitution.
The Nigerian party system is a multi-party system. There are 63 registered political parties in Nigeria of which the ruling and most popular party is the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) (www.nairaland.com). This party has been the ruling party for over a decade. Not because all elections has been won by it, but because the opposition parties are divided and weak. Elections are held every four years for Presidential, Governorship, House of Assembly and House of Representatives. Similar to the American system, the Nigerian political system is three tiered; the Federal, State and Local Governments. Local government elections are held at a three year interval unlike the state and federal elections. Elected government officials can only serve two tenures. There was an attempt to increase it to three or more tenures, but it failed massively.
The political system in Nigeria is one in which majority of the masses has lost faith in due to constant political corruption. Especially in the electoral process where there has been persistent instances of rigging. This has led to the failure of the success of the ideology of democracy in the country. Democracy in plain words is supposed to be the government of the people, for the people and by the people (Solon, 559 B.C) which is obviously not the case in the Nigerian political system.
These systems are similar in some ways but very different in many ways. The Nigerian system like that of the UK is bi-cameral but in different ways. Members of both houses of the Nigerian legislature are elected by the electorate while in the British system; only the members of the House of Commons are elected by the electorate. The British System is a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as the head of state and the prime minister as the head of government. On the other hand the Nigerian system is a federal system with the president acting as both head of state and head of government. Power is focused at the centre in both political systems i.e. Westminster and Abuja are where the most important decisions are made.
In conclusion, both political systems claim to be democratic but after critically observing them, we find that the term democracy is just an ideology. The political system of any nation, determines the governing style of the country or leaders of the country. Nigeria being an ex -colony of the UK still has several hiccups in her political system, most of which were not discussed in this essay but are known to every Nigerian. The UK being an older nation, has a more organised and developed political system.
Reference List:
Anonymous, 2004 .The British Government: The Political Party System [Available at http://britannia.com/gov/gov9.html] [assessed on the 06/05/2012]
Anonymous 2013 [http://www.nairaland.com/584400/63-registered-political-parties-nigeria] [assessed on the 06/05/2012]
Orange, P. 2009 The political system of the United Kingdom Darlington, R., 2013 [http://www.expatica.co.uk/essentials_moving_to/country_facts/Political-union-and-the-British-system-_14550.html] [assessed on the 06/05/2012]
Hanson, S. Nigeria’s Creaky Political System: Stephanie Council on Foreign Relations April 12, 2007 [http://www.cfr.org/nigeria/nigerias-creaky-political-system/p13079][ assessed on the 06/05/2012]
Word count:1,259

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    There is an element of truth in the given statement and this essay will seek to explain UK’s Parliament today does, to a certain degree, lack democratic accountability, and this can be shown in dominance of the (i) Executive, (ii) Unrepresentative, and its (iii) Detachment from citizens.…

    • 2004 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Historians have debated the powers of the king and parliament for centuries, and the events that molded the power balance between the two institutions. This power balance had been changed to a large extent by the end of the seventeenth century from what it had been at the beginning; as power and control slipped out of the monarchy’s grasp and into parliament’s hands. For could James the 1st have ever imagined that in a few years time his son would be beheaded on the charge of treason, and the monarchy itself would be abolished? Could William the 3rd have contemplated having the power to command a standing army, and conducting a foreign policy independent of Parliament? No one can deny the political changes of this era, however, what can be argued is what form this change took; an evolution or a revolution?…

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    What Is Politics

    • 310 Words
    • 2 Pages

    References: Hague, Rod; Harrop, Martin. 2004. Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction. Comparative Government and Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. 20 October 2010 http://lib.mylibrary.com?ID=86064…

    • 310 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Parliamentary system in Great Britain and the Presidential system in the United States both have histories marked by an absence of abject failure, yet neither system can be considered truly perfect. Consequently, the analyst cannot conclude that either system is better; rather, he must recognize that there are merits and faults in both systems. The Parliamentary system tends to legislate efficiently, whereas a presidential system tends toward gridlock. However, the presidential system grants both elected representatives and citizens greater influence in government. The Parliamentary system tends to favor Prime Ministers who have much experience, whereas the Presidential system…

    • 707 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Parliamentary system within the UK is widely regarded as one of the best, most democratic and efficient systems of government within the world. With functions such as legitimacy, representation and scrutiny being carried out on a daily basis, Parliament is the most important and powerful part of the UK political system. However, the effectiveness of Parliament in fulfilling its functions has come in to question for a number of reasons, and many people feel that the UK’s Parliament is in fact no longer successful in properly fulfilling its functions.…

    • 295 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The UK political system has often been criticized on it level of democracy. However, there are methods or institutes that could be adopted to make the political system more democratic in nature.…

    • 680 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    There are many similarities and differences between Britain and Russia. They both have an upper and a lower house in their parliaments and both have a Prime Minister, but in turn, only Russia has a written constitution while Britain’s constitution is unwritten. Though this essay focuses on one key aspect which Britain and Russia will be compared and contrasted on; political parties and the party system. There are huge differences in this area of comparison, largely due to the histories of the countries. Britain has had a party system for centuries and has developed into a democratic society gradually, whereas Russia has only recently developed a party system in the past twenty years since the fall of Communism.…

    • 2168 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    The United Kingdom is a democratic society; the people are given the opportunity to vote, for the political party they consider will be the best to govern. However not all persons use their vote, and those who do, not all take careful consideration over the parties portfolio, but follow a habit of generations.…

    • 1782 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Un-Codified Constitutions

    • 1268 Words
    • 6 Pages

    But, it still retains its status as a constitutionally significant body. The monarchy’s powers were transferred to ministers accountable to parliament. This means that we have a constitutional monarchy. Effectively the monarchy ‘does not reign but rules’. Even though the monarchy have not political powers, they are still important as they promote popular allegiance and patriotism. They can also be used in situation such as coalition governments to make the penultimate decision on who runs our country and various other decisions that implement the country. Walter Bagehot says that they have the right to be informed and consulted, to warn and to encourage. But the disadvantages would be that the monarchy knows they are an authority and may not take any public preference on a decision as they are not answerable to anyone. Especially when the monarchy has not the right to pass comment on our democratic system. As of late, controversy has occurred at the hand of Prince Charles and his opinions on matters deemed irrelevant to him. It is safe to say that the UK does still uphold the principle of having a constitutional…

    • 1268 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the House of Commons there are many parties all fighting individually for control of the house, and to be in power and govern the land of the UK. To win the election and do this a party or coalition of parties needs a 326 majority to be able to form a government. This system creates a dominance in the house of commons if that majority is achieved sufficiently, as with Tony Blair’s landslide in 1997 where he had over a 150 seat majority, it is this kind of one party dominance I am going to be discussing in this essay and whether or not it limits parliaments main function to represent constituents and pass laws which benefit them.…

    • 1009 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Political concepts

    • 1343 Words
    • 4 Pages

    “Politics is a many sided concept only to be understood if viewed from various angles”. Discuss.…

    • 1343 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II. The queen reigns, but does not rule.…

    • 532 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    British Royal Family has long history in the Europe. Throne of England was first built in the ninth century. In the long history, the Monarchy was the most supreme rule in the country until 1688. This year, the glorious revolution began and overthrows the Stuart dynasty. Leaders were building the “constitutional monarchy” in the United Kingdom. Gough (1999, p48) states that the “constitutional monarchy” was a mixed monarchy and the Sovereign’s power was limited. It means: the Sovereign was the head of UK, but the government controls the country and leader was the Prime Minister. The Monarch, Parliament, Prime Minister constituted a complete political system. Today, the Sovereign is Elizabeth II. She was being Queen in 1952. According to the Constitution she is the head of the UK and commonwealth (Billig, 1992).…

    • 2250 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Monarchy

    • 3215 Words
    • 8 Pages

    The monarchy The appearance The position of the monarch in Britain is a perfect illustration of the contradictory nature of the constitution. From the evidence of written law only, the Queen has almost absolute power, and it all seems very undemocratic. The American constitution talks about government of the people for the people by the people. There is no law in Britain which says anything like that. In fact, there is no legal concept ofthe people at all. Every autumn, at the state opening of Parliament, Elizabeth II, who became Queen in 1952, makes a speech. In it, she says what my government intends to do in the coming year. And indeed, it is her government, not the peoples. As far as the law is concerned, she can choose anybody she likes to run the government for her. There are no restrictions on whom she picks as her Prime Minister. It does not have to be somebody who has been elected. She could choose me she could even choose you. The same is true for her choices of people to fill some hundred or so other ministerial positions. And if she gets fed up with her ministers, she can just dismiss them. Officially speaking, they are all servants of the Crown (not servants of anything like the country or the people). She also appears to have great power over Parliament. It is she who summons a Parliament, and she who dissolves it before a general election (see chapter 10). Nothing that Parliament has decided can become law until she has agreed to it. Similarly, it is the Queen, and not any other figure of authority, who embodies the law in the courts. In the USA, when the police take someone to court to accuse them of a crime, the court records show that the people have accused that person. In other countries it might be the state that makes the accusation. But in Britain it is the Crown. This is because of the legal authority of the monarch. And when an accused person is found guilty of a crime, he or she might be sent to one of Her Majestys prisons. Other…

    • 3215 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The simplistic definition of democracy ‘government of the people for the people and by the people’ can be cited by any layman but the practical application of those words varies in different forms. Democracy as a model and structure of government has been in use for a long time. It “entails a system of government that allows the citizens freedom to decide their desires. Ancient Greece (Athens in particular) is commonly regarded as the origin of Western democracy” (Lioba and Abdulahi 2005). The word ‘democracy’ has its origin in the Greek word demos which means “the people”, and kratia which means “to rule”. Theoretically, it means a control system by the people for the people, as opposed to rule by one despot (autocracy), or a few (oligarchy). Since ancient Greece, however, the concept of democracy has remained hard to pin down. It is ironic that notwithstanding centuries of democratic governance in various parts of the globe, there is currently no univocally accepted definition of the term. Democracy has been explained by various scholars of different school of thoughts, putting into consideration that the African democracy has its own variations. Some scholars can be placed into a continuum that ranges from maximalist to minimalist approaches. The body of minimalist democratic theory is drawn from several thinkers, such as William Riker, Russell Hardin , Joseph Schumpeter, Karl Popper, , and Adam Przeworski. These authorities share a perspective in which democracy neither sets conditions for its outcomes, nor characterizes itself as anything other than an electoral system. Przeworski (1999) simply defines minimalist democracy as “a system in which parties lose elections”. He sees the essential value of democracy being in the peaceful transfer of power enacted through regular elections. Schumpeter (1950) argues that democracy does not entail rule by the people, but that it is “…a…

    • 954 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays