We have had experiences in the last Parliament when the Chairperson of the Justice Committee Hon. Jessie Majome who was at that time an opposition Member being replaced by a ZANU PF chairperson when the Constitutional Amendment No 5 was tabled. Hon. Majome was excellent in terms of executing her duties and understanding the law, but because you are opposing what the Executive wants, you are then changed again by the Executive because numbers then matter. Should we really say because you are more, you must crush every progressive initiative that comes through? That is food for thought.
Does being the majority mean you must be crushing everything that is good to just satisfy and to say this is who we are and what we want must go our way? A Bill which government side has a loyalist majority sometimes with a dissident Member to give an expression of balance though not enough to threaten the majority may sometimes emerge at the end virtually unchanged despite numerous hours of debate. How many times do we go through all this but yet by the end of the day whatever we are pushing for is not changed.
Madam Speaker, this Parliament has followed procedure and given Parliamentarians an opportunity to be able to speak and leave a legacy. The only legacy parliamentarians can leave is coming up with progressive laws that are progressive, which is critical at the end of the day. The Government chief whip is under instructions to see through the Bills unchanged at least in its bold essentials, has the power to block every amendment however, justified or well argued for, unless there is a revolt on the government side which, sadly is much rare than the case often warrants.
There are two ways in which the defects of the current system could be amended. Instead of the Committee of Selection being dominated by the whips, it could be elected by the whole House on similar basis to the method of election of the Select Committees i.e places are allotted to each party according to their proportion in the House. Members of each party then vote for their own representatives on the Committee and government has the right to choose the chairperson. It would then be for members of the House who wish to serve on a particular Committee, to make representation to the elected Committee of Selection and the later could be free to interview such applicants if they so wish.
What am I saying here? There has got to be internal democracy in the political parties. We talk about democracy a lot, but how much democracy is in the political party is. Charity begins at home. By you recalling somebody just because of Section 129(1) (k) it is not democratic enough. Have you even consulted the electorate that voted for the person? Our personal differences – if you look at most people who have been recalled, it is not because they failed to discharge their duties, but it is political personal agendas. This becomes a weapon which everybody uses, but we see again that while this weapon is being used, we also have a situation where people now hold back.
I have seen the most brilliant mind in this Parliament being quiet and I have said why are they quiet. I have seen myself talking not because I am brilliant but because I do not report to anyone, and am not put on a list by anyone. So if you are not put on a list – now there is also the issue of some in these political parties who would like to be on the list but if they do not get along with the leadership they are not on the list. How then do you expect democracy to prevail when looking at a situation where I have to lick to somebody to be in a position, which means you are compromised?
Continued next page
(312 VIEWS)
