Parliamentary Committees: Will they be effective?

Dithapelo Keorapetse | Friday April 3, 2015 13:14

 

The boycott and suspension of participation in committees by the Opposition paid off, especially the non-participation in inter-Parliamentary committees. The ruling party got the message that they don’t have a right to do as they please simply because they are the governing party. 

Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) had at the beginning of the 11th Parliament boycotted and suspended participation in Parliamentary committees, citing the nomenclature of committees which they contended was skewed in favour of the ruling party. They argued that this would seriously compromise Parliamentary oversight of the executive because, at the time, the governing party chaired all 23 committees except two. It was also well represented in inter-Parliamentary committees and slotted the Opposition in only those which required Opposition representation. The ruling party reasoned that they were the majority party in the House and that representation in committees was proportionate with representation in parliament.

Committees are extensions of Parliament; they address specific issues which can better be addressed by smaller groups of MPs. They can, in some instances, subpoena and cross examine witnesses, consider legislation in details, budget estimates and other technical matters. There are four categories of committees, namely; standing committees which are created for the life of Parliament (5 years), sessional select committees which stand dissolved at the end of each and every Parliamentary session, special select committees appointed by the National Assembly Order on a motion to consider the terms of a Bill or any other purpose and Parliamentary portfolio committees which are created for the life of a Parliament with a special sectoral mandate. MPs are chosen into committees by the committee of selection in accordance with Standing Order No. 99. The committee of selection includes; the Speaker as chairperson, the Leader of Opposition, the Government Whip, the Opposition Whip, and an additional member (not being a minister) nominated by the Leader of the House. The dominance of the ruling party is apparent in the committee.

Inter Parliamentary bodies are regional and international parliamentary bodies, which Botswana Parliament is a member. These include the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU), SADC-Parliamentary Forum (SADC-PF), Pan African Parliament (PAP), Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) and African Caribbean Pacific-European Union (ACP-EU). MPs are selected into these regional and international parliamentary bodies through nominations at the General Assembly. They vary in numbers according to the rules or requirements of each body. For example, the SADC-PF requires that out of seven MPs, there be a woman and that membership must reflect representation of political parties in the House. IPU requires that there be a woman and that there be a young person under 40 years of age.

Most parliamentary committees are still chaired by the ruling party MPs, with only about four chaired by the opposition. Committees chaired by the opposition are the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) which according to the law and Westminster parliamentary systems traditions and practices is chaired by an opposition MP, health and HIV/AIDS, members’ rights, interests and privileges and subsidiary legislation. In thirteen parliamentary committees, opposition MPs are three out of eight MPs, while in three they constitute half of committee representation and are in the majority in only one. In others, they are all in the minority to the extent that they can hardly form a quorum.

In the ACP/EU there is one opposition MP and one ruling party MP, in CPA Exco there are three opposition MPs out of nine members, in SADC-PF there are three opposition MPs out of six (representation of all parties compulsory), in the PAP there are two opposition MPs out of five members of the committee; and in the IPU there are two opposition MPs out of five members. In a nutshell, the opposition has 50% representation in the SADC-PF because the rules require that all parties be represented.

Given the organisation of parliamentary committees whereby the opposition is still seriously outnumbered in almost all committees except in about two, this is likely to detract on the effectiveness of these committees. It would be very difficult for opposition MPs to influence matters at committees without the consent of the ruling party.

Participation in the Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence, for instance, is a waste of time. The Committee is established by the Intelligence and Security Services Act and members are selected by the President. Its report may be edited by the Minister responsible. The only thing that could enhance oversight of Parliamentary committees on the executive is to hold their sittings in public and publishing their reports. MPs across the aisle must take the opportunity to innovate new ways of doing things in committees and learn from both successes and failures of the 10th Parliament committees. Inter Parliamentary bodies should be advised on the need to make representation in their bodies to reflect representation in the House in an equitable manner to avert avarice by ruling parties in various Parliaments.