Representative Democracy is a fallacy
In Uganda, we exercise representative democracy; that is where every individual receives direct representation for issues that are under debate through a representative, an MP. Whereas it is impossible to have every Ugandan vote on an issue, they (voters) exercise this through voting their representative in the parliament. As citizens, we give government two things, Votes (Power and Authority) and taxes and what we expect in return is the effective quality service delivery. Notwithstanding the above, I have noted with concern that actually this type of democracy is a sham and cannot deliver the citizens’ concerns.
How do you treat dissenting views?
The MP in the house is there because they won with majority votes. But they are representing the entire constituency including those that did not vote for them. It is common that these voters will always front dissenting views or even with their opinions, it is unlikely that the MP will take them since they are viewed as those that didn’t support them. In the recent Age limit, the most unprofessional consultations (if at all) I have seen in my life time, various sections of the voters opposed the removal of the age limit. However, various MPs presented their own views contrary to that of the constituents. This is total deceit of representation! The MP simply represented and presented their own views at the expense of the voices of the constituents.
Representation and services
What is the correlation between many MPs and service delivery? Much as many MPs have argued that their work is not to deliver services, why then do they promise tarmac, schools, bridges and in some instances even rivers to their voters? Why should MPs blame voters for asking them things they promised during campaigns? If there key role is to make and pass laws and influence policy for the betterment of their constituents, how come we see a decline in service delivery yet the number of MPs keep increasing? It therefore suggests that having an overflow of parliament with over 400 MPs does not have a direct benefit to the citizens who are voters and at the same time tax payers.
Participation of voters
Representative Democracy kills public participation. Much as voters have to be consulted, how many times have MPs consulted voters on all the laws passed in the house? It has been left to the elite class where a few individuals, associations, CSOs, professional bodies who present lengthy position papers to the Parliament Committees while the ordinary voter who has never come to Kampala is left to wander on their own. Much as it is good to consult all stakeholders, the voters should be priority! The MPs must go to the constituencies and gather public opinion for this is why they were voted. Instead of voters participation in governance, they are being participated thus qualifying this representative democracy a fallacy.
Party politics and Peoples’ wishes
The party politics has killed fair representation. The party caucuses have killed public voices. How is it possible that an MP will abandon the views of their constituency because they are bound by their party decisions? It is not the party that elected them rather the citizens and as such, for any MP to claim party decisions and positions over the citizenry, we should arrange for their immediate recall from Parliament. The social contract is between the MP and the voters and as such, the voters ‘opinions must override any other interests. Unfortunately, party caucuses have usurped parliament decisions later on citizen views (if at all consulted). When an MP stands up to support a party position with not consultation of the voters, they should never again claim representing their voters.
What are the Terms of reference and accountability mechanisms?
There are no clear accountability mechanisms that voters will hold their MPs accountable. The voters are only left to one chance that is after 5 years of which they will choose not to elect an MP back to parliament. There have been attempts to measure the performance of Parliament but again this has been done by stakeholders such as the Uganda Governance Monitoring Platform (UGMP) which in several years measured the performances of Parliament as against the aspirations of citizens. Much as this gives a glimpse on the overall performance of parliament, little is known of the individual performance of MPs. What are the terms of references of an MP? Is it also known to his clients (voters)? All I see is that at swearing in, an MP is given a copy of a constitution and Parliamentary rules of procedure and they are welcomed to the green seats. Without clear accountability mechanisms, it is hard to hold the MPs accountable which negates the notion of representation.
When an MP is sick or in prison or away, who is representing the voters?
Unlike the speaker of the house who has a deputy, unfortunately an MP has no assistant who will stand to debate on the floor of the house in the absence of the “lead MP.” I have observed several times MPs taking long study leaves, treatment abroad, trips and exchange visits while others are held in detention centres or formally remanded. For whatever reasons they are away as explained above, who then becomes the representative of the constituents? Who debates their issues? Who pushes for their concerns? It is clear that a certain constituency will remain unrepresented for the period an MP will be away for a study leave somewhere in Europe. Representation then becomes a total fallacy! When an MP is sick and needs medical care for a longer period, what becomes of their constituency? How are the views of the Constituency heard in Parliament? The voters will remain un-represented while the MP still receives their salary!
With the above many unanswered questions, representative democracy remains a fallacy and as such, we need to re-think this kind of representation as we spend millions of money in organising elections to select our so called representatives who in actual sense never represent us!
By:
Michael Aboneka Jr.
How do you treat dissenting views?
The MP in the house is there because they won with majority votes. But they are representing the entire constituency including those that did not vote for them. It is common that these voters will always front dissenting views or even with their opinions, it is unlikely that the MP will take them since they are viewed as those that didn’t support them. In the recent Age limit, the most unprofessional consultations (if at all) I have seen in my life time, various sections of the voters opposed the removal of the age limit. However, various MPs presented their own views contrary to that of the constituents. This is total deceit of representation! The MP simply represented and presented their own views at the expense of the voices of the constituents.
Representation and services
What is the correlation between many MPs and service delivery? Much as many MPs have argued that their work is not to deliver services, why then do they promise tarmac, schools, bridges and in some instances even rivers to their voters? Why should MPs blame voters for asking them things they promised during campaigns? If there key role is to make and pass laws and influence policy for the betterment of their constituents, how come we see a decline in service delivery yet the number of MPs keep increasing? It therefore suggests that having an overflow of parliament with over 400 MPs does not have a direct benefit to the citizens who are voters and at the same time tax payers.
Participation of voters
Representative Democracy kills public participation. Much as voters have to be consulted, how many times have MPs consulted voters on all the laws passed in the house? It has been left to the elite class where a few individuals, associations, CSOs, professional bodies who present lengthy position papers to the Parliament Committees while the ordinary voter who has never come to Kampala is left to wander on their own. Much as it is good to consult all stakeholders, the voters should be priority! The MPs must go to the constituencies and gather public opinion for this is why they were voted. Instead of voters participation in governance, they are being participated thus qualifying this representative democracy a fallacy.
Party politics and Peoples’ wishes
The party politics has killed fair representation. The party caucuses have killed public voices. How is it possible that an MP will abandon the views of their constituency because they are bound by their party decisions? It is not the party that elected them rather the citizens and as such, for any MP to claim party decisions and positions over the citizenry, we should arrange for their immediate recall from Parliament. The social contract is between the MP and the voters and as such, the voters ‘opinions must override any other interests. Unfortunately, party caucuses have usurped parliament decisions later on citizen views (if at all consulted). When an MP stands up to support a party position with not consultation of the voters, they should never again claim representing their voters.
What are the Terms of reference and accountability mechanisms?
There are no clear accountability mechanisms that voters will hold their MPs accountable. The voters are only left to one chance that is after 5 years of which they will choose not to elect an MP back to parliament. There have been attempts to measure the performance of Parliament but again this has been done by stakeholders such as the Uganda Governance Monitoring Platform (UGMP) which in several years measured the performances of Parliament as against the aspirations of citizens. Much as this gives a glimpse on the overall performance of parliament, little is known of the individual performance of MPs. What are the terms of references of an MP? Is it also known to his clients (voters)? All I see is that at swearing in, an MP is given a copy of a constitution and Parliamentary rules of procedure and they are welcomed to the green seats. Without clear accountability mechanisms, it is hard to hold the MPs accountable which negates the notion of representation.
When an MP is sick or in prison or away, who is representing the voters?
Unlike the speaker of the house who has a deputy, unfortunately an MP has no assistant who will stand to debate on the floor of the house in the absence of the “lead MP.” I have observed several times MPs taking long study leaves, treatment abroad, trips and exchange visits while others are held in detention centres or formally remanded. For whatever reasons they are away as explained above, who then becomes the representative of the constituents? Who debates their issues? Who pushes for their concerns? It is clear that a certain constituency will remain unrepresented for the period an MP will be away for a study leave somewhere in Europe. Representation then becomes a total fallacy! When an MP is sick and needs medical care for a longer period, what becomes of their constituency? How are the views of the Constituency heard in Parliament? The voters will remain un-represented while the MP still receives their salary!
With the above many unanswered questions, representative democracy remains a fallacy and as such, we need to re-think this kind of representation as we spend millions of money in organising elections to select our so called representatives who in actual sense never represent us!
By:
Michael Aboneka Jr.
Comments
Post a Comment