Taking Parliament to the people humbug
Michael Dingake | Thursday June 16, 2016 15:52
It’s true of course, better late than never, but the point needs to be made. What do we mean by ‘taking Parliament to the people?’ Of course, it doesn’t mean literally uprooting Parliament buildings and meetings of MPs from Gaborone to the village Kgotlas! That would be crazy and nigh impossible.
Taking Parliament to the people in terms of the Speaker’s programme I believe means key parliamentary functionary(ies), Speaker or deputy, Vice President or representative plus an opposition representative visiting villages distant from Gaborone, the seat of Parliament to interact with the common people to teach, inform and acquaint them with Parliament, what it does, how it’s constituted, how it operates, why it’s elected the way it’s elected, how it debates and enact laws.
This is necessary because Batswana in faraway districts have no opportunity to attend parliamentary session, to see, hear and interact with MPs from areas other than own constituencies. The programme is meant to teach the masses in outside districts about the who, the what, the why, the how and the very significance of parliament. Botswana Parliament is relatively young compared to non-African Parliaments. In some countries, parliaments are upward of 300 - 400-years-old. Nationals in those countries know almost all there is to know about their parliaments. They have television and radio stations to keep them abreast with Parliament. Where-as Batswana still relegated to hearsay stage of their Parliament.
Before the advent of Parliament, we were ruled by a different system, dikgosi, who we were taught, ruled because they were born to rule. Under dikgosi Batswana, didn’t have the right to approve or disapprove kgosi’s edicts unless they were outrageous and completely against tradition.
Male villagers enjoyed the prestigious role of participating in prosecution of suspects brought before the kgotla; constituted the prosecution team and cross-examined the suspect. It was a very interesting judicial system. To a large extent, the Kgotla was the legislature, the executive and the judiciary all in one, with the kgosi having the final word in the proceedings at the Kgotla. Separation of powers was unknown. Anathema. A villager knew all his/her do’s and don’ts.
The introduction of the parliamentary system was a complete departure from the traditional system. To reconcile the new with the old it needed a re-education of Batswana. Looking back, I wonder what might have happened had the first prime minister/president of the independent Botswana been someone other than Seretse Khama, who had wide acceptance, due to his royal background? There would probably have been dissidence to spare! I won’t forget the experience a group of us encountered on a door-to-door campaign in 1965 in Lobatse.
A lady hearing we were disseminating opposition elections message sobbed hysterically and vowed she would stand by her master (mong’ame) come hell or highwater! In short, the lady regarded us as mortal enemies of tradition! That is why the very first Parliament should have kicked off the programme: Taking Parliament to the people! However, as I have said, it’s better late than never! Where to start, in the circumstances? The way I see it, the Speaker of the National Assembly should be taking with her on her trips to the kgotlas, Leader of the House (LOH) and leader of the opposition (LOO). The two would consult and advise how to tackle delicate questions convincingly. The task of the accompanying MPs wouldn’t be to contradict but to help the Speaker answer awkward questions credibly.
Questions asked by the audiences at the Speakers’ Kgotla meetings need to be answered fully, credibly and with sincerity. Take the question asked at one of the recent Kgotla meetings addressed by Madame Speaker: Why is Parliament not broadcasting parliamentary debates live? The question is pertinent and needed to be answered fully and transparently. The answer could reveal lack of oversight by the previous parliaments. The truth of the matter is that the one and perhaps the only way to take Parliament to Batswana could be through live broadcasts from Parliament. Live debates would take Parliament to the people in a consistent and transparent manner, more than the Speaker’s jaunts to the villages could ever do. Parliament would adorn Kgotlas and huts, illuminate the village paths, homes, stay there and motivate Batswana with its transparent nearness. Madame Speaker’s answer could have been helped by the presence of LOH and LOO. Constraints of resources answer was humbug. It needs to be excoriated. What would have been the answer to a follow-up question: What is the estimated budget for live debates? Madame Speaker would have been caught off balance!
The truth is that the cost of live debates wouldn’t be that prohibitive; a budget deficit created by an additional vote to take Parliament to the people wouldn’t plunge the country into a junk status. Infrastructure exists and it’s used when the President delivers his State of the Nation Addresses. Additional expenditure would be for the operation and servicing of the infrastructure. It wouldn’t be anywhere above the cost of the current Madame Speaker’s tours, and the glaring deficit of Batswana’s ignorance regarding their blankness of knowledge on what parliament does and MPs’ roles in its activities. Do the MPs snooze or absent themselves when laws and policies are debated in the august House? What happens? Do the MPs deserve to be re-elected or cast out for underperformance? Want to take Parliament to the people? Let’s do it effectively and efficiently!
Editors note: Due to technical challenges we were unable to publish this column on Tuesday, but repeated an old one. We regret the inconvenience caused.