God bless 11th Parliament; save it from endless disruptions now happening
This was only the second session of the Eleventh Parliament. It may be remembered that even its first session (the inaugural session) which was held on November 20, 2015, was marred by similar disruptions; as was reported by the ‘Daily News’ of November 21, 2015, which carried the following ‘breaking news’ on its Home News page : ‘’The Speaker of the National Assembly, Honourable Job Ndugai, yesterday ordered out of the National Assembly all members of Parliament (MPs) from the Opposition camp, for attempting to disrupt proceedings as President John Magufuli was about to officially launch the Eleventh Parliament.
Before giving such marching orders, Honourable Ndugai had first ordered the said MPs to sit down and allow the session to proceed. After disobeying his orders, the Speaker ordered them to leave the debating chamber immediately’’.
In my article commenting on that particular event, I described it as a ‘false start for the Eleventh Parliament’, having borrowed the words ‘false start’ from the title of an old book by Rene Dumont, which is titled ‘False Start in Africa’.
I said then that this kind of behaviour by the said MPs who were thrown out of the House, was not only bad behaviour in the general every sense of the word ‘bad’, but was also totally unethical behaviour, for the reason that the said MPs were attempting to prevent the Head of State from performing one of his basic constitutional functions, namely that of inaugurating a new parliament after a general election, as provided for in article 91(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic. Furthermore, it was bad behaviour because they were protesting against a matter which is completely is outside the constitutional competence of the Union Parliament, namely a ‘non-Union matter’ which is properly and constitutionally the responsibility of the Zanzibar House of Representatives.
This constituted failure on their part to recognize the constitutional boundaries within which the Union Parliament must operate.
The Ukawa protesters indicated that they were protesting against a matter relating to the Zanzibar elections, namely the decision made by the Chairman of the Zanzibar Electoral Commission to countermand the Zanzibar general election, which, they claimed, had allowed Zanzibar President Mohamed Shein, and the other Zanzibar leaders, to remain in office illegally.
But such matter cannot validly be raised in the Union parliament, simply because, under the provisions of the Constitution of the United republic, Zanzibar elections are not a ‘Union matter’.
Article 64(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977; provides a clear distinction between ‘Union matters’ which are within the competence of the Union Parliament to deal with; and ‘non-Union matters, responsibility for which is vested solely in the Zanzibar House of Representatives, and therefore outside the competence of the Union Parliament to deal with. Failure to recognise this constitutional boundary was another ‘false start’ for the Ukawa MPs .
They surely should know, or ought to know, the constitutional boundaries, which restrict their actions , and avoid raising matters which are outside the competence of the Union Parliament to deal with.
They should avoid ‘ living in the past’ The renowned 18th century British Constitutional lawyer Sir William Blackstone, is on record as having said the following in relation to the powers of the British Parliament : “The power and jurisdiction of the British Parliament is so transcendent and absolute that it cannot be confined, either for causes or for persons, within any bounds”.
That might have been the situation in 18th century Britain, but has now totally changed even in Britain itself. And in our case, the two-government Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania does confine our Parliament ‘within the bounds’ which are specified therein, namely, the Union parliament’s competence is confined only to ‘Union matters’ in relation to Zanzibar, while responsibility for all non-Union matters in relation to Zanzibar is vested solely in the Zanzibar House of Representatives. The matter of the administration of Zanzibar elections is a ‘non-Union’ matter.
God bless the eleventh Parliament The second session of the Eleventh Parliament has commenced, and we have witnessed a repeat of similar disturbances within the House.
There are normally a total of twenty sessions in the constitutional life of every Parliament. This repetition of disturbances is an uncomfortable indicator of what may be expected to happen in subsequent sessions! That is why it appears necessary to say a short prayer for our new Parliament. God bless the eleventh Parliament.
There is a more acceptable way of expressing protest The protest this time was on a matter which is within the Union parliament’s constitutional competence to deal with.
But there is a well established and acceptable Parliamentary way of expressing protest, without causing a breach of the House Rules and thus attracting the punishment of a temporary expulsion.
This is for the protesting members to just peacefully walking out of the House, without creating trouble by disrupting its proceedings.
The practice of walking out of the House in protest against something which has taken place therein, such a decision with which they disagree, is normal practice in many Parliaments around the world, and has actually happened more than once before, even in our own Parliament.
It will certainly help to maintain the reputation of the House if this method is adopted in any future protests. What actually happened .
The Minister responsible for Information and Broadcasting Services, had informed the House that the Tanzania Broadcasting Corporation (TBC), a government agency, had decided to reduce airtime for live coverage of Parliamentary proceedings, citing high costs as the reason for that decision.
He said that the costs for running the coverage had become unbearable for TBC, given the fact that it attracted very few advertisements to keep it running profitably.
The minister said that parliamentary proceedings would be recorded and aired at night, arguing that only a few people are able to watch the live coverage during the day, because of their other work commitments.
This argument did not convince the opposition camp, as one of their spokespersons said: “the people out there who pay taxes to cover the TBC operations want to see how their MPs are debating the president’s inauguration speech . It is therefore unfair to continue this debate without live coverage”.
After two adjournments and further interventions from the Opposition amounting to a disruption of proceedings, the presiding member ordered four opposition MPs to leave the House, whereupon all the MPs of the opposition camp rose to protest the action by the presiding Member, who in turn ordered all of them to leave the House, escorted by police officers.
I believe that this intervention by the police would have been unnecessary, had the protesting MPs simply walked out of the House peacefully on their own initiative (as they correctly did on the next day), without first disrupting the proceedings, and thus causing a breach of the House rules, and thus inviting punishment.
Great expectations regarding the Eleventh Parliament But, apart from this ‘false start’, there are certain ‘great expectations’ regarding the eleventh Parliament which also merit some brief discussion here, because they happen to constitute a mixture of both valid (or legitimate) expectations, and some false expectations.
In an earlier article, we discussed the false expectations, which were based on the false desire that inside Parliament, the ruling party MPs should abandon their political party’s interests and ideologies, and concentrate only on the national interest. I pointed out that such expectations were false, because of the rigid political competition which is implied in the multiparty system of governance.
The fact of this competition (inside Parliament) is what obliges the ruling party MPs to follow the relevant established rules for such competition. In this article, we will discuss the legitimate expectations.
I call them legitimate because they are realisable. There are several legitimate public expectations regarding the performance of the new Eleventh Parliament, including the following: The expectation that in their deliberations on the issues which will be brought before them for consideration and decision, the MPs will endeavour to give first priority to the wider national interest (maslahi ya Taifa), before giving consideration to their own narrow personal or political party interests. This is indeed a legitimate expectation , for two sound reasons.
First, because the MPs have each taken a solemn oath ‘to be faithful and bear true allegiance to his country’, it is expected that this oath will bind him or her, to give first priority to the national interest in the performance of his duties as a public leader.
The second reason relates to the government side. It is an established practice that most of the items which are presented for consideration by the House, are normally government business.
Obviously, any serious government which needs to survive at the next general election, will always present to the House only such business which is in the public interest, designed mostly for the purpose of implementing the promises it made to the electorate through its election manifesto.
The expectation that the MPs of the eleventh Parliament will conduct themselves in the House, generally in accordance with the requirements of (a) the Country’s Constitution, and (b), the Parliamentary Rules of procedure, which are ordinarily cited as the Standing Orders of the House.
This is a legitimate expectation because, the Constitution is what prescribes the legitimate functions of Parliament, and also prescribes the methods through which such functions shall be performed.
While the Standing Orders provide all the detailed guidelines on how the MPs shall carry out their duties and responsibilities within the House.
The expectation that the Speaker shall be fair and impartial in conducting the business of the House. This is a legitimate expectation because this is a new Parliament and, just like the tenth parliament, it also has a new Speaker.
The role of the Speaker is especially relevant and important in relation to the maintenance of order during debates in the House. For example, in the days leading to the inauguration of this new Eleventh Parliament, I personally had an opportunity of listening to a tv programme which is aired every Thursday by ITV, titled Malumbano ya Hoja.
Many of the participants who spoke, expressed the hope that the unfortunate misbehavior in the House, which had been displayed by some of the MPs during the Tenth Parliament, would not be repeated in the Eleventh Parliament. That was indeed the hope and expectation of all peace loving citizens.
And this is exactly where the Speaker comes in. Erskine May, the acknowledged ‘book of authority’ on Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, describes the powers of the Speaker to enforce order in the House, in the following terms :- “It is absolutely necessary that the Speaker should be invested with authority to repress disorder and to give effect promptly and decisively to the rules and orders of the House” Hence, since the public expects, according to ITV’s malumbano ya hoja, that ‘the unfortunate misbehavior by some of the MPs, which had occurred in the Tenth Parliament would not be repeated in the eleventh Parliament’, it presumably also follows that the public expects the Speaker to exercise his power and authority, without fear or favour, ‘to repress disorder and to give effect promptly and decisively to the rules and orders of the House.
Once more; God bless the Eleventh Parliament.
No comments: