here is a concept in political science called "continuity in governance." On the very surface of this concept, it is assumed that a country needs continuity in its government to continue to meet the demands of modern day governance. Its not prudent for members of a government to be elected out of office in one election as that would not augur well with the above concept. But in Nigeria, with its current democratic structure, theoretically, all in government from the president to the members of the house and senate to even state governors and legislators can all be voted out in one election.

What are the pros and cons of this? I certainly see no pros from my vintage point [except of course, there is a need to rid ourselves in one election of all in government on account of corruption] as what we would have in this type of situation, especially in a country like Nigeria is nothing but a re-tooling of government and a reinvention of the wheel every four years. Seemingly, there would be no one who will continue the policies and programs of government as the new elected officers would be busy acclimating themselves to their new positions and that process alone can take up to two years, if not more.

In my opinion, the framers of our democratic structure did not take into consideration the need to have a portion of government in tact while others are being re-elected as is the case in the US. In the US, there is a reason why senators serve a six-year terms, while members of the House of Representatives serve two-years terms and while the president serves a four-year term. The concept of continuity is well in place to the point that all elected members of the US government can never be voted out in one election as we have what we call "off-year" elections which happens two years after the presidential elections.

In this context then, the end of the eight-year term of President William Blythe Clinton simple means that he would leave with his cabinet members and those elected lawmakers who failed to win re-election would have to leave as well. But there would be at least half of the membership in the senate who would remain as the core of the government and continue its legislative policies and programs and educate other incoming members of those programs and policies in the interest of good governance.

But in Nigeria, the shortsightedness of the military constitution has not provided for such a contingency. It is very unusual that in a democracy an entire elected population of officers can be swept out of office in one election--thus, necessitating a re-start for the new officers. When this happens, its the country that suffers, its the progressive policies that suffer setbacks, be it economic, social or political. The time used by these politicians to acclimate to their new environment could be the time the country could have moved forward on the path of progress.

Its obvious that the military did not consult far and wide when the current constitution that is governing the fourth republic was being put together---otherwise, any political scientist vast in the matters of constitutional law could have advised the the Constituent Assembly of these constitutional provisions.

In this context, it would have been prudent for the constitution to make the following provisions:

1. That all senators have a four year term. In this vein, half of the senators should have been elected in 1999 when the presidential elections were being held and the other half would have been elected this year, 2001. These elected first would represent their states until their colleagues are elected two years later.

This would mean that the those elected in 1999 would be up for re-election in 2003 and those elected in 2001 would be up for re-election in 2005. The same will be true with members of the House of Representatives and even with members from the state assemblies.

We can fashion it in a way that the first batch of lawmakers elected would represent the entire state in the case of senators, two or more districts in the case of members of the House and two or more constituents in the case of state lawmakers. They would be expected to abdicate parts of their responsibility when their colleagues are elected and that would mark the beginning of a well placed structured of continuity.

This will ensure that all elected members at the federal level in government cannot be voted out in one election in the interest of continuity. Cost would certainly be an issue, but it would also mean that the first election will not be as expensive since not all positions would be filled. Thus, we can distribute the cost accordingly.

2. All states should have two senators and not three. There is not use for three senators. Two can adequately represent each of the thirty six states. If states like California and New York with population in the high 20s if not 30s [million] can each have two senators represent them, why should a state like Zamfara with less than 5 million population have three senators? Is governing Zamfara more complex a job than California or New York? I think not. The provision of three senators under the current constitution is wasteful and calls into question the collective cogitation of all those responsible for the constitution.

Nigeria as a nation is yet to suffer the effects of the gross inadequacies of the current constitution. Although no country can boast of a perfect constitution, its almost asinine for a country like Nigeria to have a constitution such as the one we have which does not consider the essential elements of good governance and nor made provision for same. The result of this neglect would be billions of naira wasted in trying to orient a new government every four years while Nigerians wait for the new government to wet its feet and come up with policies, programs and laws that would benefit them.

The need to remodel democracy in Nigeria is even more pronounced now than ever.