THE last time I attended and covered the National Council, I ended up in hospital. It was so boring that the pain I’d had for two days intensified to the extent that I was booked into hospital for a minor operation.
Just 30 minutes of sitting in the public gallery of the National Council could easily make you age! There should be a way to make the debates livelier and more colourful.
I am thus in two minds over the decision by the lawmakers to move part of their next session to Walvis Bay. It is a great decision to take Parliament to the people and will be historic as it will be the first regional session of the National Council outside Windhoek.
But will their discussions become more inspiring, colourful and robust? I doubt that.
You hardly get enlightened debates from the National Council as our MPs are guilty of not doing research on some of the topics on the table.
Speeches are quickly scribbled on small pieces of paper and while you can clearly see that the piece of paper in the MP's hand has two or three written words, they go on speaking for longer than the time allocated to them.
Now, I don't say people should not have scribbled pieces of paper. I admire people who speak off the cuff, especially when they make sense.
A recent example of such people was the Ghanaian President John Ata Mills. What a pleasure to have watched him speaking without looking at notes but making very good sense on diplomacy, economics and other pertinent issues.
But, when someone is droning into a microphone, as do many of our Parliamentarians, it is a waste of time and other resources.
I am told that the National Council will have two-and-a-half hour meetings in Walvis Bay from September 13 to 22. This is apparently part of the objectives in the strategic plan.
On the agenda is, among others, discussion on the Industrial Property Bill as well as standing committee reports.
I am not far off the mark if I say that 95 per cent of those in the National Council have not read the 125-page document which was passed by Cabinet in 2005 already and only got to the National Council now.
Yet it is an important bill which, although not written to entertain, provides for the registration and protection of patents, industrial designs and trademarks.
The least we can expect from our Parliamentarians is to provide lively debates even if they hardly make sense. There are hardly foes in the National Council, because it is an almost 100 per cent Swapo gathering, but cutting each other down to size with colourful language can work instead of the 'sleep-for-pay' sessions.
The move to Walvis Bay will be a costly one. The MPs will get travel and subsistence fees as well as accommodation money on top of their sitting allowances. Staff of the National Council as well as those who will do the recording must also travel to the coast.
As the MPs arrive in Walvis Bay, they will probably drive straight to the sea and throw in coins to greet ancestors before heading to their hotels for lavish dinners.
During the sessions they will waste all their energies on trivia like complaining about how their work (like properly scrutinising recommended legislation) is crippled by a small budget, lack of NBC coverage and how we should maintain peace and tranquility in the country.
Are those not perhaps just convenient ways of deflecting attention from what they are not doing?
I don't think they need additional funds for MPs to read through proposed legislation. Do they?
Unless our MPs prepare well for the coastal session, it will turn out to be an expensive exercise and a time of much yawning, much like the ones in Windhoek.
As a result an opportunity to show the coastal community how committed they are to the work will be wasted while thousands of dollars will go down the drain.
It is for the MPs to prove me wrong.
Showing posts with label Parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parliament. Show all posts
Friday, September 9, 2011
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Opposition Must Take Their Seats in Parliament
ELECTED Members of Parliament for the DTA of Namibia, Republican Party and the Rally for Democracy and Progress must go back to Parliament! They have made their point by boycotting sessions for a whole month.
I am suggesting this because the electorate is suffering. So are debates in the National Assembly.
The parties argue that they are entitled to more seats in the National Assembly and therefore contest the outcome of the November elections.
That means, for instance, that the 11 seats which they did collect are not in dispute and will not be affected by the outcome of their court appeal. Thus there is no prejudice to their current status as announced after the November elections.
The majority of the opposition parties shouted blue murder when the results were announced; teamed up to approach the court for permission to inspect the materials over the December holidays; challenged the results; stayed away from the swearing-in ceremony; and also appealed against the High Court order of last month.
In the appeal, nine political parties – RDP, DTA, RP, United Democratic Front, Nudo, Congress of Democrats, All People’s Party, Namibia Democratic Movement for Change and Democratic Party of Namibia – are asking the Supreme Court to reverse the March 4 decision of High Court Judge President Petrus Damaseb and Judge Collins Parker to throw the parties’ challenge to the November elections out of court on a technicality.
The two judges also ordered the opposition parties to bear the legal costs of the Electoral Commission of Namibia and Swapo which opposed their challenge to set aside last year’s elections or to order a recount of votes cast in the polls.
For that they can hold their heads up high. It was a good move for Namibia’s democracy.
Boycotting the swearing-in ceremony was a principled decision but, for me, also one that was intended to rustle up support from their constituencies as well as the international community.
In fact supporters forced the DTA leadership to stay away from the swearing-in ceremony. Nudo members tried the same with their leaders but the MPs survived the pressure and are collecting their pay cheques.
But with the latest announcement by Chief Justice Peter Shivute that the appeal will now be heard in the Supreme Court only on May 31, the three parties and their elected MPs should rethink their stance.
We have reached a kind of gridlock.
I am thinking about a scenario where the Supreme Court may refer the case back to the High Court after May 31.
If the opposition get a chance to be heard again but is not happy with the High Court ruling they can appeal to Supreme Court again. That appeal could again take another few months and keep the MPs outside the chambers for longer.
Rather than going back to Parliament then only, wouldn’t it be better if they do so now?
I know that the three parties (RDP, DTA and RP) believe that if they are sworn in now it would pre-empt the verdict of the courts and thus they decided to recuse themselves.
However, democracy - the very one the opposition parties want to promote - is being affected negatively by their Parliamentary snub.
Already the general Budget debate has been almost concluded without any input from these parties and, if they stay outside until May 31, history and the Parliamentary Hansard will record that DTA, RDP and RP were non-existent in the National Assembly between March and May 2010.
With the National Assembly set to go on recess around May 20, returning only during the last quarter of June, the politicians would thus be missing in action for another two months.
The result is that the wishes of their voters for input on the Budget and other debates in the National Assembly will be confined to the dustbin of history as some in Swapo would want.
I believe that taking their places in Parliament will not affect the outcome of their case.
Our courts are mature and at a stage where such an argument by anyone will not impact on their ruling. In any case, what about the presence, in the National Assembly, of other parties which also challenged the High Court outcome with the three? Does their presence not affect the case?
Vibrant multi-party opposition is crucial for democracy.
Instead of obsessing about the issue, the MPs should take up their seats in Parliament and do what they were elected for.
They have made their point.
* This article first appeared in The Namibian
I am suggesting this because the electorate is suffering. So are debates in the National Assembly.
The parties argue that they are entitled to more seats in the National Assembly and therefore contest the outcome of the November elections.
That means, for instance, that the 11 seats which they did collect are not in dispute and will not be affected by the outcome of their court appeal. Thus there is no prejudice to their current status as announced after the November elections.
The majority of the opposition parties shouted blue murder when the results were announced; teamed up to approach the court for permission to inspect the materials over the December holidays; challenged the results; stayed away from the swearing-in ceremony; and also appealed against the High Court order of last month.
In the appeal, nine political parties – RDP, DTA, RP, United Democratic Front, Nudo, Congress of Democrats, All People’s Party, Namibia Democratic Movement for Change and Democratic Party of Namibia – are asking the Supreme Court to reverse the March 4 decision of High Court Judge President Petrus Damaseb and Judge Collins Parker to throw the parties’ challenge to the November elections out of court on a technicality.
The two judges also ordered the opposition parties to bear the legal costs of the Electoral Commission of Namibia and Swapo which opposed their challenge to set aside last year’s elections or to order a recount of votes cast in the polls.
For that they can hold their heads up high. It was a good move for Namibia’s democracy.
Boycotting the swearing-in ceremony was a principled decision but, for me, also one that was intended to rustle up support from their constituencies as well as the international community.
In fact supporters forced the DTA leadership to stay away from the swearing-in ceremony. Nudo members tried the same with their leaders but the MPs survived the pressure and are collecting their pay cheques.
But with the latest announcement by Chief Justice Peter Shivute that the appeal will now be heard in the Supreme Court only on May 31, the three parties and their elected MPs should rethink their stance.
We have reached a kind of gridlock.
I am thinking about a scenario where the Supreme Court may refer the case back to the High Court after May 31.
If the opposition get a chance to be heard again but is not happy with the High Court ruling they can appeal to Supreme Court again. That appeal could again take another few months and keep the MPs outside the chambers for longer.
Rather than going back to Parliament then only, wouldn’t it be better if they do so now?
I know that the three parties (RDP, DTA and RP) believe that if they are sworn in now it would pre-empt the verdict of the courts and thus they decided to recuse themselves.
However, democracy - the very one the opposition parties want to promote - is being affected negatively by their Parliamentary snub.
Already the general Budget debate has been almost concluded without any input from these parties and, if they stay outside until May 31, history and the Parliamentary Hansard will record that DTA, RDP and RP were non-existent in the National Assembly between March and May 2010.
With the National Assembly set to go on recess around May 20, returning only during the last quarter of June, the politicians would thus be missing in action for another two months.
The result is that the wishes of their voters for input on the Budget and other debates in the National Assembly will be confined to the dustbin of history as some in Swapo would want.
I believe that taking their places in Parliament will not affect the outcome of their case.
Our courts are mature and at a stage where such an argument by anyone will not impact on their ruling. In any case, what about the presence, in the National Assembly, of other parties which also challenged the High Court outcome with the three? Does their presence not affect the case?
Vibrant multi-party opposition is crucial for democracy.
Instead of obsessing about the issue, the MPs should take up their seats in Parliament and do what they were elected for.
They have made their point.
* This article first appeared in The Namibian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
