Editor’s Note: This is an update of an earlier version of the same article.
Opinion
By Hassan Baraka, Businessman and Writer, Maryland, USA.
Parliament is one of the three pillars of government and it plays a crucial role in nurturing democracy and strengthening good governance. Parliament makes laws, amends exiting laws that have become outdated, and repeals those laws that are no longer useful in building democratic institutions, that are the corner stone for the promotion of good governance.
Apart from making laws, parliament also acts as a watchdog over the executive to make sure there is accountability and proper service delivery to the citizens. Without a robust oversight by parliament of government’s activities, accountability will fail and the end result is that good governance will deteriorate.
Before the 1991 constitution, too much power was vested in the executive and this largely made the parliament weak and ineffectual. To minimize the power of the executive and increase the participatory role of parliament in scrutinizing the activities of the executive, the 1991 constitution gave enormous power to parliament. However, despite the robust power given to parliament by the 1991 constitution, the Sierra Leone parliament continues to be lame and ineffective.
One of the fundamental problems inhibiting the Sierra Leone parliament is the lack of will of parliamentarians to make adequate use of the powers provided to parliament by the 1991 constitution.
It’s no wonder that parliamentarians (MPs) are now obliged to curry favours from the Speaker and Majority Leader who now tends to decide the fate and welfare of the rest of the MPs. In a situation where most of the MPs are self-centered and are only looking out for what will benefit them individually, they end up being mere sycophants. This can be seen clearly in situations where MPs compete for lucrative foreign travel to benefit from astronomical per diems paid to them from the already impoverished coffers of the state.
The stuffed envelope syndrome commonly known as " Item 13” is very much prevalent in the Sierra Leone parliament. “Item 13” is a corruption tool used by committee members of parliament to extort money from presidential nominees before being approved, or any issue, for that matter, brought forward before parliament for approval. It is alleged that the sharing of the loot sometimes leads to acrimonious squabbles resulting in physical fights among members of parliament depending on the disposition of the MPs involved. It is true that corruption is not peculiar to the African societies as a whole, but rather it is the lack of ethical leadership that has allowed corruption to become so commonplace that it is accepted as the moral norm of society. If corruption for survival is allowed in parliament, the supposed bastion of democracy, then it is anybody’s guess where we are heading as a nation.
In any democratic parliament, there are MPs who support the government and there are MPs who are opposed to it. However, these two opposing factions should not constantly be in a battle of supremacy that will undercut their determined will to effectively represent their constituents’ interests. The
retrogressive competition among MPs for leadership positions has greatly undermined the performance of parliament. This in itself leads to a vortex of internal feuds, resulting into backstabbing, rigorous or bitter conflicts and divisions which further leads to strengthen the political domination of the Speaker and or the majority leader over the causes thereby making them ineffective.
In the USA, a congressman or senator can draft a bill that will become a law because of the support of the various causes in both houses of congress, the ossified ideological differences between the democrats and the republicans notwithstanding. This is a rare occurrence in the Sierra Leone parliament. We know the USA has come a long way in its struggle in democratic transformation but that should not be used as an excuse not to emulate those good deeds that will help our budding democracy.
Article 23 in the 1991 constitution is the private member motion which gives the right to members of parliament to raise the issues that are pertinent to the welfare of the people of Sierra Leone. But because parliament lacks the political will to champion such motions, coupled with the unwillingness on the part of the party in power or the “powers that be” to implement anything, such legislations are usually not brought up in parliament for debate.
The failure of parliamentary oversight committees in overseeing the activities of the executive is very telling. The finance committee is a good example.
Parliament should make sure that it is highly involved in the pre-budget consultations with the Ministry of Finance before the budget is brought to parliament for approval. The role of parliamentary committees is undermined through corruption and sometimes the arm twisting and bullying tactics of the executive by threatening to deny dissident MPs of party symbols.
Some parliamentary oversight committees lack the capacity to effectively do their work. There is not enough training and some committee members lack the basic intellect or sophisticated character that befit their legislative responsibilities. They lack the technical know-how to analyze, scrutinize and see through complex issues embedded in some of the issues brought to parliament for ratification. The
mining agreement ratified by the Sierra Leone parliament is a classic example.
Parliamentarians most times see themselves as an isolated group that is preoccupied with the business of making money rather than paying attention to the needs of their constituents. Sometimes MPs will leave the Well of parliament when serious issues affecting the state are been discussed and go downtown, hankering for money from wealthy businessmen and other self-serving political opportunists. This type of attitude is emblematic of MPs’ broader attitude that is self-centered. For this to stop, there should be robust pressure from outside, like civil society groups and most importantly the fourth estate which has an important role to play in making sure that parliamentarians pay more attention to their representational role. MPs who take part in parliamentary debates sometimes are afraid to speak their minds due to party discipline or loyalty at the detriment of their constituents. However, MPs have the moral responsibility to defend the interests of their constituents by opposing policies which they inherently believe to be misguided or damaging to the general welfare of the state even when such policies are promoted by their own party.
For parliament to be effective in doing its central role in the promotion of democracy, it should be accessible to the public through the internet to keep the citizens abreast of parliamentary proceedings.
An easily searchable electronic database of all previous legislation will help MPs to know the workings of parliament and get them ready for the challenges they will face when they enter the Well of parliament.
The Sierra Leone parliament regrettably has become too contentious and uncompromising. This acrimony has led to many walk outs by the opposition. The majority party has the tendency to bulldoze its policies through parliament without proper consultations with the opposition. The Majority Leader and Speaker must be unifiers and they should not use their majority in parliament to railroad the opposition into submission. It is crystal clear that the majority party has to cater for its constituents but it cannot be a complete bully by forcing issues that go against the grain of society through the throat of the opposition. An effective Speaker and Majority Leader should invite the various causes and try to find a middle ground on both sides of the aisle before bringing bills to the floor for approval. Such a consensus building approach will minimize the numbers of walk outs from the opposition that has threatened our budding democracy.
The Sierra Leone parliament has become too predictable when dealing with the executive especially with the absence of the critical voice of the opposition party that has undermined its fiduciary obligation in parliament due to intra-party fighting for supremacy. Bills motioned in parliament by the executive are not vigorously challenged, and in most cases, the executive branch gets what it wants with the complicity of the opposition party. This has given rise to the implicit public perception that parliament has become merely an appendage of the executive. There are instances in which the CVs presented to parliament by unscrupulous presidential nominees are either fake or embellished to give the nominee undue advantage during the interview process. There is no effective mechanism put in place to vet questionable CVs even though there are enough red flags to draw the attention of the committee members. In some cases, parliamentarians who have the temerity to ask questions that have the potential to derail the nomination of a particular presidential nominee are silenced by arm twisting and or bribery from the committee head who is engrossed in making sure that the president’s nominee is confirmed even though there is ample evidence that this particular nominee is indeed unqualified.
Based on what is happening today in Sierra Leone, one is tempted to say that power is overly concentrated in the hands of the executive. The President retains control over the budget, retains the right to the majority of appointments throughout the government, the military, the police and other
security services, etc, etc. This is not true. What is true is that parliament is too weak to protect the interests of the people. There is nothing the President can do within the ambit of the 1991 constitution without the approval of parliament. In fact, parliament has the power to override a presidential veto once that vetoed legislation by the President is brought back to parliament and gets a two- thirds
majority of parliament. This shows that the power of parliament supersedes that of the president’s.
In addition, parliament has the power to veto a presidential nomination for ministerial or other high public office. I cannot for the life of me imagine that parliament will approve well know corrupt public servants who had committed egregious crimes against the state or discredited sacked former ministers.
This is perplexing, to say the least.
Furthermore, parliament should know that no loans can be raised or contracted without its approval or consent. Section 118 of the constitution stipulates that loans can only be raised or contracted for clearly defined national projects and objectives. Is this what is happening today in Sierra Leone? Your guess is
as good as mine.
In fairness, the parliament of Sierra Leone is beset with an avalanche of problems that has overly restrained its output and made it less attractive to many highly qualified Sierra Leoneans with the moral compass and the political discernment needed in making laws and passing legislation that will strengthen our fledgling democracy and promote good governance. MPs in Sierra Leone are left high and
dry, and in most case; this has made their contributions in parliament merely pedestrian. They are not provided with enough logistics that will bolster their representational role.
In a bid to help parliament claw back its representational and oversight roles that will help to ameliorate this downward retrogression, I want to humbly make the following recommendations:
1. The political parties in the country need to do structural changes within the upper echelons of their parties by not giving too much power to party leaders that will give them leverage to manipulate the award of party symbols. Even though there are clear laid down party rules on paper that the people should choose their candidates, in most cases this does not apply especially in instances where a mediocre party favourite is in imminent danger of losing the primary contest. Through political browbeating or backroom maneuvering, the people’s choice
is forced to concede defeat thereby setting the stage for a weak representative in parliament who becomes a yes man or woman. In some cases, a candidate with high political pedigree can be denied the symbol if the party establishment perceives him or her to have an objective mind that cannot be easily swayed into towing the party line when controversial legislations are piloted in parliament. Throwing such a progressive parliamentarian under the bus for speaking truth to power endangers the caliber of parliament. When incapable individuals come to parliament, their sole preoccupation is to serve the agendas of the ruling party and or government no matter how oblique some of these agendas could be, at the expense of their constituents.
2. Most of the political parties do not have an organized system of fund raising for the electoral campaigns of MPs. Most of the time, all the money is given to the presidential candidate who in some parties is also the leader and chairman of the party. Such an arrangement leaves weak and vulnerable MPs at the mercy of the presidential candidate. This problem is compounded by unsavory businessmen and plum job seekers who secretly funnel money to the presidential candidate instead of the party establishment thereby making potential leaders filthy rich even before ascending to the presidency. This leaves MPs to curry favour from the flag bearer for their very survival making them subservient to his dictates and wishes. In the US and other developed countries, all political donations are channeled to a well structured party establishment. At times people aspiring for leadership are put in prison if they embezzle funds meant for the running of their campaigns.
3. Poor remuneration of MPs has hamstrung the carrying out of their constituency obligations. Because of poor salaries and other inadequacies, MPs are under tremendous pressure to practice corruption even when they condemn the practice. The overbearing demands from constituents to help deal with basic necessities of life do not help either. Within the sub-region, Sierra Leone MPs are on the lower rung in remunerations. Monthly salary for MPs in Sierra Leone is Le 11, 900,000 (Eleven million nine hundred thousand Leones),in Liberia it is $7,000.00.The allowance for rent for MPs in Sierra Leone is Le 4,300,000.00, but no medical allowance, no NASSIT, no vehicle and no allowance for fuel. The anticipated constituency development fund is Le 69,000,000.00 per annum. In Liberia, MPs have a constituency fund of $200,000.00 per annum.
4. Since most of the work in parliament is done in committees, all committee heads should be provided with an office equipped with up to date technological equipments and a well trained and qualified support staff, tasked with the responsibility of doing the necessary research that will help in crafting meaningful and relevant legislations for the advancement of democracy and the state. In the US, members of congress have the above-mentioned facilities. Democracy is not cheap and this is the main reason why the federal government in the US is responsible for shouldering the financial responsibilities that will make representatives more productive in the congress. Apart from committee heads, MPs should be provided with offices fully furnished at the level of ministers, equipped with high speed internet facilities. They should also be given periodic technological training to keep them abreast with the dynamic internet world we are now living in. It is strongly rumoured that some MPs do not have email addresses or access to the internet, they have to rely only on local newspapers that at times can print misleading information about what is happening in the country and the world at large.
5. The financial burden on MPs to solve their constituents’ financial needs is overwhelming. The irony is that parliament has failed to articulate forcefully this problem on their behalf that will rally public opinion in support of increasing the allocations of funds meant for the development of their constituencies.
6. The number of women MPs in parliament is very telling. Political parties should increase exponentially the quota of party symbols awarded to women. In parliament, women MPs should not only be included in committees, but they should head some of these committees. Women can be just as productive as men or even better.
7. The role of MPs is more than interpreting and implementing government policies. They should act as watchdogs in making sure that the excesses of the executive are checked through parliamentary oversight committees. The finance committee should make sure that it plays participatory role in pre-budget consultations with the ministry of finance. It should demand quarterly statements of government expenditures for scrutiny. If such control measures are not enforced, the end result is the perpetuation of endemic corruption that will lead to bad governance.
8. Parliament should focus on enacting laws and building institutions that mirror the aspirations of the society. This will help in shaping the way society thinks and functions rather than continue to strengthen bureaucratized institutions left to us by our colonial masters that in most cases are easily compromised due to bribery or political interference from the “powers that be.”
Parliament is weak today because society is weak, resulting from the lack of ethics-related legislations. When this happens, society lacks the consciousness to elect leaders that are progressive and morally upright. In other words, you cannot divorce any leadership from its society since every leadership is an expression of the collective will of a people.
Comments