A Call for Parliamentary Renewal

Restoring Faith in Governance

By Sada Reddi

The perception that a general malaise has gripped the country is not very far from reality. For the population, there is no longer a doubt that there is an urgent need to address various failings confronting the country. But the big question that remains is: how do we do it? No one has a readymade solution, but there is a vast amount of experience that should be tapped to forge a new direction for a free society.

The parliamentary system, albeit a restricted one, has been in place since the 1886 elections. Our citizens have assumed that parliamentary government and state institutions will continue to improve with time, but they seem to have discovered that it was wrong to assume its linear development. They have now realized the unsuspected hidden dangers that have burst out and are trying to turn the clock back. They also realize that institutions decay and perish unless they are revitalized and given a new lease of life.

The statistical expression of the malaise can be easily found in the depreciation of the rupee, growing indebtedness and balance of payments deficit, unemployment, and poor governance. Added to this growing list of grievances is the (mal)functioning of the parliamentary system, which may itself be at the core of the many ills of society. Political scientists would surely probe the issues affecting our country and reach different conclusions, but reflection and action by society must start right away, pending further action and measures to be taken at a later stage.

It has been clear to many social scientists for a long time that our democratic system has been mostly a formal one, as the principles underlying it have often been violated. Nevertheless, on balance, barring some weaknesses, the system has worked more or less satisfactorily, and several conventions informing it were respected. Those principles and conventions were derived from a long tradition of parliamentary government inherited from the Westminster model. We may have forgotten that a parliamentary system is not merely a series of laws and procedures inscribed in our Constitution. Rather, it is also grounded in a number of conventions that must be observed and respected if we want the system to operate usefully, efficiently, and above all, democratically.

Political Culture

It is true that conventions have often been flouted in the past, and ‘To hell with Erskine May’ has been hurled at the President of the Legislative Council. This is not surprising, as it took time to learn and grasp parliamentary skills; it seems today the learning curve will take a much longer time given our present political culture, or lack thereof. This is also evident in the weakening of institutions, delayed justice, abuse of authority, denial of social justice, and many more ills.

In the end, we all know that we cannot rely on the current political system to obtain a redress of grievances. The conventions that should guide the ethical behaviour of some of our parliamentarians have also been disregarded. Members of the Assembly cannot engage in a debate that fairly identifies issues and proposes durable solutions because our parliamentarians have been regimented to vote either for or against. Most of them have lost their ability to be critical, creative, and innovative and to reach a balanced judgment on the many problems faced by the nation. It is true that we have adopted an adversarial style of parliamentary politics, but this does not mean that members of the National Assembly cannot shed their blinkers when public interest requires it. As a result, questions and complaints are made, but few concrete actions seem to follow, making question time appear to citizens as a futile ritual.

One consequence of the parliamentary system being reduced to a mere ritual is that the checks and balances that should act as a brake on the Executive have been weakened. Although all governments must share in the blame for the present situation, they had in the past shown restraint in exercising power. Perhaps we did not realize that not all politicians have a culture of restraint, and some might shockingly go to extremes while still employing the rhetoric of public interest.

Though it is a well-known principle, it needs to be reiterated that parliamentary sovereignty rests on the principle of the sovereignty of the people. Parliamentarians are meant to represent ordinary citizens, whose concerns they voice out, through parliamentary questions, to the Executive, ask for clarifications and explanations. In other words, they are supposed to keep the Executive on its toes and make it accountable for its decisions. Parliament does not share power with the Executive but expresses the suspicions and public opinion on any wrongdoing of the Executive and forces it to respond and to take action, up to and including the revocation of ministers.

The Public Interest

Any abuse of power and authority by the Executive can encroach on the duties and responsibilities of public officials and public officers. Though there are laws, regulations, and procedures that govern the relationship between the Executive and public servants, undermining and subverting this relationship can open the gate for poor governance, inefficiency, wastage of resources, and the bullying of public officers to act against the public interest. The public interest is not the same as the private interests of the Executive. But it is Parliament, excluding those who form part of the Executive, that has the role and responsibility as watchdog of the public interest.

On the other hand, civil servants have been entrusted with the responsibility to implement policies in the public interest. They have been recruited and trained and must abide by the procedures laid down in the Constitution and other legislations and regulations. Their conditions of service have made their posts permanent to ensure the continuity of the State and their commitment to public service. They have to collaborate with the government of the day for the implementation of its policies but must follow prescribed rules and procedures. They are like the lawyer who provides all the information to his client and then awaits instructions from him to be implemented within well-laid down procedures.

Civil servants in Mauritius have fulfilled this role well. It is well-known they have implemented the decisions of one government and the opposite policies with the same zeal when a new government comes in. But to ignore conventions, bypass procedures, and harass civil servants who have a responsibility to serve the public interest will lower the morale of our public officers, weaken the role of our institutions, waste their time in useless and unnecessary action, and finally leave them with no possibility to tackle important problems facing the country. The only compensation for any maladministration is that it is the Minister who is responsible for any wrong decision imposed on the civil servant under his administration. Even there, when one would expect members of the Executive to resign on a question of principle, they remain stuck to their ministerial posts unless revoked, and persist in their wrongdoing with impunity.

How do we fix the system? One could argue that there is no way to fix a decayed system from inside, especially when many of our institutions have been subverted. Yet the democratic deficit must be addressed. A law commission may take up various issues and sensitize public opinion on potential solutions. Academics may continue to investigate the flaws of the political system and suggest possible remedies. Citizens and citizens’ organizations can come up with various suggestions, educate the wider public, and propose solutions.

At the present moment, we also have a unique opportunity to benefit from the experience of some of our senior politicians who know the system inside out and understand the conditions necessary to maintain and safeguard a free society. Their efforts should be directed in that direction, but they would need to work out the modalities that will help bring about effective action. This must be done in the most democratic manner possible. The present challenge is to revive the principles and conditions for a free society.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 30 August 2024