allAfrica.com: Botswana: Etcetera II - Speaking For Whom? (Page 1 of 1)

A couple of comments made during the recent debate by the National Assembly on the Bogosi bill struck me as being particularly odd.

The first came from the Deputy Speaker, Gladys Kokorwe, who rejected Keletso Rakhudu's objection that the Assistant Minister of Local Government, Ambrose Masalila, should be allowed to speak about the Bill (for the second team presumably) as he was the one who had brought it to Parliament. Kokorwe insisted that it was MP Masalila who was speaking, not the presenting Minister, and that he should therefore be permitted to continue.

How did she know which hat he was wearing at that moment? Was it clear from the nature of his comments; or had the two of them had a quick word together during the tea break? But then again what did it mean when she said that Masilila was speaking as an MP - that he was speaking in his individual capacity or speaking as someone representing the views of his constituents? How on earth could she have known? And if she had known, would it have made the slightest difference to her ruling? It may seem that the question is a quibble, something of minimal importance. But it is one which is absolutely basic to any democratic system and as a result has been worked over and debated for over 200 years. Are MPs in Parliament bound to reflect the views of their constituents even if they conflict with their own, or are they able to use their own best judgement especially in instances where it may have been difficult or impossible to gauge what those constituency opinions might be?

Some issues may seem relatively straightforward. It is perhaps possible that a really conscientious MP might be reasonably sure that his constituents were either for or against the death penalty and could confidently speak on their behalf. But new Bills are written in professionally specialised English and are often extremely complicated documents which need to be interpreted, clause by clause, to those unable either to read them or understand them. I have never heard of an MP who has even attempted to make this effort. Is it possible that even a reasonable number of any MPs constituents can be properly informed about important new Bills? Yes, everyone can pick up something from tv, the radio, newspaper and better informed friends - but is this enough for any of us to come to an informed, objective view? If not, how can any MP in the National Assembly claim to be representing the views of their constituents when the majority may not have the slightest clue what the Bill in question actually says? In marginal constituencies, an MP would have needed to consult the members of probably two opposition parties in order to gain their views. But does this ever happen? And if it doesn't, what kind of credence can be given to an MP claiming to speak on behalf of all (or even a majority) of his constituents? Assistant Minister Peter Siele, for instance, was reported as stating in the National Assembly that he knew that his constituents supported the Bogosi Bill so there was no need for him to do anything else but support it. If my recollection is correct, his contribution does make my point.

The electorate needs to be very sure in what capacity an MP is speaking when he/she makes a contribution in the National Assembly. Is it as a ruling party MP bound to support whatever the government is presenting, even if it may be contrary to the interests of that particular constituency? Is it as an M.P. speaking as an individual? Or is it as an MP claiming to speak on behalf of a constituency? It is important that the Deputy Speaker's knowledge and understanding of such matters is made available to the voting public.

web allafrica.com	Enter your search terms	Submit search form
OR subscribers use AllAfrica's premium search engine


Use our pull-down menus to find more stories

Today's Most Active Stories