Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Who holds Parliament accountable?

Who holds Parliament accountable?
Commentary
Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:06:00 +0000

ONE of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton, questioned the ability of popular assemblies in conducting themselves in an august way to deserve the trust of the people. He argued that popular assemblies sometimes are too subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities to be able to function as protectors of “we the people”.

He further argued that assemblies are led by individuals whose passions and views are likely to tincture them.

Hamilton argued that the judiciary should act as the whip of the people, to keep these assemblies (the legislature in particular) in line if it oversteps its boundaries. A functional judiciary would act as a super-ordinate watchdog on elected legislators who are likely to overstep their mark, especially in a country where politicians could wield considerable power.

The judiciary’s role is even more important in a situation like the one obtaining in Zimbabwe where a party that holds a simple legislative majority does not wield political power (or leverage) and the risk of using an arithmetic advantage for retributive purposes is high. The arithmetical compulsions of having more MPs in the House of Assembly could lead to political adventurism, as we are starting to witness in Zimbabwe.

In this situation, especially one where also the Speaker of the House partakes in such adventurism, an increasing role for the judiciary becomes imperative in declaring “all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” Without such a watchdog, the degeneration of the legislature leading to its failure to act on behalf of the electorate is guaranteed.

Events in the past few days in Zimbabwe point to a situation where we could easily experience degeneration in our legislature. A precursor to that process was the booing and heckling of President Robert Mugabe at the opening of Parliament which put the reputation of the august House into disrepute. This was followed swiftly by the politically charged address to the British Labour party Conference by the Speaker of the House of Assembly throwing the neutrality of the new Speaker into doubt (as required by his new role). Despite, an intensive formal orientation exercise, the First Session of the First Assembly was characterized by the same amount of depredation and hooliganism. Never in the history of the Zimbabwean Assembly have we witnessed such incidents, except in one other incident involving, ironically, an MDC legislator (then), Roy Bennett.

The degeneracy of the august assembly in Zimbabwe is further exacerbated by the fact that there are no moral (character) and academic qualifications required of those people who sit in there, except that they have to be elected by the people and that they are registered as voter. This is a troubling anomaly: that we expect those people who administer (or facilitate the administration of) the law to be qualified, but not those who pass that law (except that they are elected).

Arguments for a new Constitution in Zimbabwe have never been predicated on the quality of the lawmakers and those who administer it. If these two groups are not factored in, such arguments will remain baseless. Expecting ten million people to approve a Constitution through a referendum, a Constitution drawn by a few morally inept and bankrupt individuals is scandalous. A “people-driven Constitution” is still drawn by elected officials sitting in assemblies, and unless those assemblies are made up of morally qualified and balanced individuals, democracy will remain a mirage – whether these individuals are coming from Zanu PF or any of the MDC parties.

Whatever the new “people-driven Constitution” may or may not provide, the welfare of the country will depend upon the way in which the country is administered. That will depend upon the men who administer it – those sitting in the assemblies. If the people who are elected are capable, and are men and women of character and integrity, they would be able to make the best even of a defective Constitution.

After three days and three sittings, legislators in Zimbabwe still argue about whether or not there are sanctions against Zimbabwe. After three days and three sittings, some legislators still undermine Article IV (on Sanctions and Measures) in the Unity Agreement (signed by their respective party) calling for an end to illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe. These sanctions are hurting the ordinary folk who, ironically, elected these representatives.

Article IV is clear on the Zimbabwe Democracy Recovery Act (ZDERA) imposed by the United States government, among a raft of various other sanctions imposed by the West. The MDC co-drafted and signed this Unity Agreement and its leadership should whip legislators into accepting the sanctions issue to be recognized and debated in Parliament.

The debate should not be about whether or not to debate sanctions, but actually debating how to set up a ‘reference group’ to be sent to those countries that imposed the illegal sanctions, and deciding which legislators (from all parties) will be in that reference group.

Anything apart from this will make the Unity Agreement a “lifeless thing” and put Parliament into disrepute.

The problem confronting us today is urgent and needs men and women of vision; otherwise this scenario will be repeated with almost every motion in Parliament; including passing of the national budget. Legislators were not given the mandate to use their collective position for retribution, but their individual mandate for the advancement of those who elected them.

The Zimbabwean judiciary, where Parliament is inept, should be the bulwark of democracy and bastion of civil and political rights. It should act as the insurance against widespread tyranny by those who hold a simple majority in Parliament. In this case the Unity Agreement signed on 9/11 and formally adopted on September 15 should be safeguarded by the judiciary and those who signed it should be held to account. In the same light, legislators should act to protect the rights of those who elected them, without overstepping their mark.

A divided and inept Parliament should be put in check by the judiciary (in the spirit of the separation of powers doctrine) and given the current demography of the Zimbabwean House of Assembly juxtaposed against the centres of political power in the country, this is urgent as long as the judiciary does not mirror the same ineptitude of Parliament. If this does not happen, in the words of one Indian President, “the nation would be on the calamitous road to inevitable disaster and ruination.”


info@talkzimbabwe.com

Labels: PARLIAMENT

posted by MrK @ 1:00 AM