Weakening Parliament through Government Business

| Friday July 17, 2015 14:25

A lot has been said about the nomenclature of the House in which over 40% of Members of Parliament (MPs) is the executive and that the ruling party backbench is numerically weaker than the front bench. It has been also contended that the ruling party caucus decisions are binding on all MPs. Critics have also pointed to the lack of independence of Parliament because it depends on the Office of the President for staff and resources, among other things. Not much has been said about how through Government Business in the House and other flawed arrangements the Government exert its dominance in Parliamentary proceedings. The argument sought to be made here is that Government Business and Ministers dominate the agenda and the time in the House and that it is bad for the independence and power of Parliament.

What is Government Business and why is it an issue? Government Business is defined by the Standing Orders as proceedings on motions of which notice has been given by, and on Bills in charge of ministers and assistant ministers. Ministers may also bring motions to adopt policy documents, can make statements in the House and can also table papers inter alia. This effectively is Government Business, whilst it is not explicitly defined as such by the Standing Orders.  The leader of the House office is worth noting and it is according to the Standing Orders, a Minister designated as such by the President for the arrangement of business in the House and traditionally it has been the Vice President of the Republic of Botswana.

Government business can be compared with Private Members Business.  The Role of Leader of the House, now the Vice President, is worth noting. He selects public Bills and/or policies to be presented before Parliament, arranges Government Business in the House and he is ipso facto a Member of the Business Advisory Committee which sets the agenda of the House. The Leader of the House initiates procedural motions relating to the Business of the House and he responds on behalf of the President to the debate upon the State of The Nation Address where instructed to do so and he is allotted more time than all MPs. He discusses with the Speaker and agrees on prorogation and dissolution of Parliament. Some critical functions of the Leader of the House should go to the Speaker because as it is the rules make him a senior MP and that detracts from Parliamentary independence. This is not helped by the character of the current Leader of the House; he is proud and conceited-has an inflated self-image and views himself as incredibly powerful, influential and smarter. He talks incessantly about the achievements of his Government in a manner that suggest the lack of need to reform and better things. 

The Standing Orders reserves the larger part of Parliamentary timetable for discussion of Government Business, for the most part, Government initiates Bills, including the Appropriation Bill and Supplementary budgets, motions on policies, tabling of papers and sometimes even statements by Ministers. The Government is at liberty to arrange the order of its Business as it likes. When there is no Government Business to consider, Parliament cannot proceed to consider motion, themes, questions and other things brought by MPs. It doesn’t matter how many of these are on the cue, the House will adjourn even if it means adjourning a month or weeks or days before the anticipated time of adjournment.

The Standing Orders advantages the executive in many ways; only a Minister can initiate a financial Bill, only a Minister can move a motion of adjournment or termination of sitting and this is usually done by The Leader of the House. The Government is also able to influence the agenda through the ruling party caucus and the use of their number in the House as the majority party notwithstanding that the ruling party lost the popular vote and that the opposition represents majority of Batswana.

This argument is substantiated by the working together of the opposition in Parliament including caucusing together and supporting each other. The Government may also use the numbers of the ruling party in Parliament to curtail debates, the establishment and determination of terms of reference and or mandate and the nomenclature of Parliamentary Committees. I have previously discussed how Parliamentary Committees are structured; majority of the MPs are from the ruling party, some chair two committees and most committees are now dysfunctional, they are in fact dead.