Reform Standing Orders of Parliament
Dithapelo Keorapetse | Friday September 4, 2015 15:28
Therefore, key to reforming Parliament in the process of democratisation is the review of not only the Constitution and the Powers no Privileges law, but also the Standing Orders.
The Standing Orders of Parliament are a serious impediment to democratisation of the polity in general and the independence of Parliament, its smooth running and that of Committees in particular.
Some rules are actually stupid, obsolete and unnecessary. Members of Parliament (MPs) find it difficult to comply with some of the rules. Ever since Parliament started, the Committee on Standing Orders and Reform hardly meets to review these regulations.
What is clear is that the Standing Orders are a deliberate impediment to progress and are meant to not only to frustrate MPs in the opposition, but are also meant to hold a firm grip on Parliament to avert transparency and accountability. The objective is that the ruling elite be accountable to themselves only.
The Standing Orders are a set of written rules enacted by Parliament to regulate its own proceedings in accordance with both the provisions of the constitution and case law after the infamous 'hands up case'. These rules include how Parliamentary Business is arranged and conducted, the rules of procedure and decorum of the house and/or behaviour of MPs during deliberations and rules relating to Committees of Parliament.
The permanent or standing nature of these rules and regulations implies that they do not expire at the end of a session of Parliament but rather they remain in effect until Parliament itself amends, repeals or reforms them.
The way the Standing Orders are structured, effectively Ministers have no obligation to answer questions from MPs because they can tell half-truths, distort information, refuse to answer, waste time with unnecessary information and even totally refuse to answer questions.
There's no consistency in answering questions e.g. One Minister may give you full information with figures on a question while another may refuse to be transparent and accountable and cite flimsy reasons and the speaker can't do anything especially when the latter is not impartial.
In theory, a way around the Standing Orders to avoid impediments to progress is through granting leave and by a motion to suspend the Standing Orders.
However, in practice, this is done in most cases to let the ruling elite do as they please in the House. Bills, policies and other decisions can be rushed through Parliament in this manner and other Government Business can be disposed off in this manner. In a nutshell, the Standing Orders favour Government Business over Private Members Business such as Private Member's Bills, Motions, Questions and Themes.
Most of the powers of the Leader of the House should be given to the Speaker of the National Assembly to reduce executive dominance.
Transparency and accountability are not adequately addressed by the Standing Orders. Neither the President nor his Vice can be asked questions by MPs in the same way that other sovereigns elsewhere are held accountable e.g. the UK or South Africa.
The President doesn't even attend the General Assembly and seldom attends Parliament.
The ruling party can pack committees with its members, with no regard to equitable representation of parties, and render them useless because the Standing Orders permit this nonsense.
The idea of rising to catch the Speaker's attention is obsolete and needs improvement. Botswana is a secular state and its Parliament has and has had Muslim MPs e.g. Abdul Satar Dada, Mohamed Khan and Likart Kablay. However, everyday Parliament starts with a Christian prayer with no regard to other religions.
Is this fair on other religions and is it proper in a secular state? Our Standing Orders still assume that Parliament is for old conservative people who dress hopelessly with the usual jacket and tie for men.
They don't cater for contemporary fashion trends preferred by millennials who make part of Parliament now. Traditional African or Setswana attire and religious attire are not allowed. In this day and age?
The Standing Orders stupidly allow Ministers not to answer questions on information that can be found in official documents. Really? Ours is a country with no Freedom of Information law to invoke to demand official information.
Besides, Botswana has a plethora of secrecy laws and civil servants below Director level aren't permitted to speak to the media about or on behalf of the government without permission and mostly those at that level work on contracts.
Who would risk their jobs by giving MPs information? Shouldn't the Standing Orders compel Ministers to answer such questions because the information can actually be found in official documents?
There's a lot that can be said about our Standing Orders and I encourage scholars, lawyers and MPs to study them and strive for the reform of these rules and regulations.