RSS Feed (xml)
I consider it my duty to offer an explanation to the people on the position of the royal government in respect of the subject of non-attendance of ministers in the ‘question hour’ of the National Council. I am hopeful this will help clear the concerns and doubts surrounding the issue.
We, the members of Parliament (National Council & National Assembly), see ourselves as having been gifted to play a historic role in establishing the roots of a unique Bhutanese democracy. Our two houses fully appreciate the need to work together, even as we must often differ in the spirit and nature of a true democracy.
The non-participation of Ministers in the National Council (NC) question hour, under the present arrangement, is in the larger interest of democracy and in adherence to the spirit and principles of the Constitution. To interpret and publicise this decision as a sign of fear on the part of ministers or as a lack of esteem for NC is to be disrespectful to the ministers and to misinform the people on the intentions of the National Assembly (NA) and the Cabinet.
The position of the royal government was made clear to the NC last year. Following reasons remain valid:
• The Constitution does not require ministers to attend NC question hour sessions. That the Cabinet must report to and be answerable to NC, since it is collectively accountable to parliament, is a flawed argument. The people need to understand the truth that neither NC nor NA by itself constitutes the parliament. Parliament is comprised of three elements and includes His Majesty the King, who is the third and highest. That is why no bill passed by both houses can become an Act unless it receives Royal assent.
• The NC Act does not require a minister to answer questions. Unlike the NA Act, which states very clearly that a minister shall respond in person to questions, section 131 of the NC Act states “an interpellation requires the government (not minister) to present an opinion, either orally or in writing”. Section 136 further states: “questions of national importance shall be listed in category 1 and shall require written answers to be given.” The two Acts were passed in the same session of Parliament and these differences were made to ensure that ministers are not obligated. What the public has not been told is that the ministers have very respectfully submitted their responses to NC in writing.
• What is also not made known is that he Cabinet ministers had decided to go to NC to present personally the government bills as a mark of respect. Lyonpo Zimba, who was half way to the NC to make his presentation on the day of the first question hour, was told not to come by the NC secretariat as they had adjourned because Lyonpo Minjur had not come for question hour. Since then, the ministers have had to cancel such presentations.
All the questions sent to the ministers were very simple and related to development and administrative matters. These included: why ‘Ngenba Guzom’ government holiday had been cancelled; why Gomphu Kora was not under the administration of Trashiyangtse rabdey; human-wildlife conflict; joining of a farm road; bridge for a power tiller track, etc. Such matters are the responsibility of NA MPs, who are bound directly to the voters and belong to the house that forms the government and where the Cabinet sits. It is in the NA that ministers are specifically required by law to answer such questions. In addition, the people always submit their questions directly to NA through the Dzongkhag Tshogdes. One does not see the need to ask similar questions through another house or channel where, in any case, decisions cannot be arrived at, as in NA.
Section 6 of the NC Act states “The NC shall not be bound by voters or interest groups and shall function in a non-partisan manner in their Parliamentary work.” This means that NC is not to entertain direct requests from their constituencies, unlike their political counterpart. Our people need to know that NC members are not their direct representatives. Such questions should be forwarded to NA.
It has been suggested that, as a good will gesture, the ministers should go to the NC question hour. Three good reasons prevent them from doing so:
• Firstly, it would undermine the vital role of NC as a ‘house of review’. When NC intervenes by questioning government ministers on administrative and developmental matters, it influences or alters their actions and becomes an involved party, thereby losing objectivity and its value as a house of review.
• Secondly, it would be wrong for this government to tie future governments to a procedure that would hinder their functioning. Future governments may not be as strong as ours. Imagine Q&A sessions in the NA itself, where the ruling government has just a small majority built out of an unholy alliance among several parties from the primaries. To further subject ministers to questions on anything it does or intends to do in an NC that, in future, could become politically motivated or even inquisitorial, would make government falter.
• Then there is the third reason. It is possible that the parliamentary sessions, in future, will need to be extended beyond the current periods as bills keep piling. Ministers would then be spending their time preparing responses and running between the two houses, fearful of taking decisions with little time for real work. The NC Act states, “Question time ... shall be held such number of times...... as the NC deems expedient”.
It is important to note that NA, both opposition and government, is directly associated with the executive. It must aid, oppose or question the government. This house, among others, must decide on government programmes in the annual budget form. It naturally follows that NA becomes accountable for government actions. Therefore, if the government fails and falls, the entire house is dissolved and its MPs must return to the people for their verdict. As NA is, thus, involved with the executive, there is the need for the other house, NC, to serve as an objective, apolitical house of review for the good of democracy. Its role as the house of moderation and long term vision beyond the five year interests of governments must not be compromised.
The NC cannot and must not seek direct involvement in government in the interest of its special mandate of review. It has no direct accountability to the people. For this reason, it is privileged to serve its full term even when a government falls. Questioning ministers on behalf of voters and drawing itself into the functions of the executive, is not only a violation of section 6 of its own Act but deprives our unique democratic system of its vital review mechanism.
The National Council needs to understand its mandate. It needs to function within the principles and bounds cir*****scribed by the Constitution, even though it has the capacity to do more. It must not replicate NA. Its search for a greater role to check strong governments from becoming autocratic or excessive is a noble thought but not well founded. Seeking an expanded role beyond what is prescribed by the Constitution is dangerous in itself.
No governments in Bhutan and in our unique democracy can become tyrannical or dictatorial. That is what is unique about the democracy that our Kings have bequeathed to us. Ours is an intelligent, self-correcting, holistic system within an immaculately conceived constitutional frame. With foresight, all the vital constitutional instruments of checks and balance were put in place even before the first government was elected. I list below a range of such institutional arrangements:
• The independent judiciary ensures no government body or individual can act against the law with impunity and that no one is above law.
• Constitutional bodies, namely, the Election Commission, the ACC, the Royal Audit Authority and the RCSC carry out oversight functions, ensuring that government and parties stay within rules, that they do not misuse power, privilege and public resources.
• The Public Accounts Committee of parliament, comprising both NA and NC members, check on government expenditure and performance as well.
• On the fear of human rights violations, a NA Human Rights Committee has been instituted and its effectiveness assured by electing as its chair, a member of the opposition party.
• Making rural poor victims of neglect and wrongdoing is just as impossible because of decentralisation. Further, the rural-biased 10th five-year programme bears testimony to RGoB’s commitment to social, economic and health empowerment of rural people so that they can exercise their political power responsibly and without compulsions.
• As for the possibility of doing selective favours to certain sections of people or buying votes by gifting state properties, our policy is that gifting of even a needle belonging to the state is the prerogative of the King alone, exercised in the form of Kidus for the needy.
• RGoB must mobilise development assistance on the merit of its policies and good governance. This makes the royal government fully susceptible and amenable to the scrutiny and checks of the international community.
• Keeping people in the dark and misinformed is made impossible by a media corpus that is growing in capacity, diversity and assertiveness.
• Above all, our revered monarch will never allow the worst that happens in many ‘democracies’ to ever be suffered by the Bhutanese people.
So then, even as the spectre of ‘tyranny of majority’ and the need for NC to play an expanded role is raised, our democracy is not so vulnerable and threatened by the government that the people have elected with unanimous trust. We must not undermine the capacity of our oversight mechanisms and be led to believe that, without the NC assuming further check and balance roles, the government will become authoritarian. In the making of laws, should not the role of this legislative body, which includes five eminent persons, be to provide wisdom and moderation through the process of calm and contemplative deliberations? Should it not be objectively reviewing and reporting on the actions of the government and on matters affecting the ‘the security’, ‘sovereignty’ and ‘interests of the nation and people’ as mandated by the Constitution in section 2 of Article 11?
We understand and appreciate the desire of NC members to elevate our National Council. But are we not aware that it already enjoys status as part of the highest institution in our democratic constitutional monarchy? Elevation does not come from role expansion, especially if it were to undermine good principles embedded in the Constitution. Being situated at the highest possible level, neither NA nor NC can rise any higher. We, as MPs, can only fall or remain elevated, depending on how we conduct our sacred duties and are judged by the King and people we serve.
Without demonstrating enough will for conciliation, one house has shown persistence in building issues for ‘constitutional crises’ and judicial intervention. Others are joining in to fuel public disenchantment and a thinly-veiled, first ever parliamentary walk-out has been staged in a country that has never been plagued by the ‘strike’ culture. These have not been heart-warming. When the dust settles; when reflection follows emotions and fleeting biases; when good sense prevails, such indiscretions will not earn elevation for NC and NA nor parliament.
History tells us that we Bhutanese can excel in conciliation and are rich in its traditions. We can find solutions without compromising principles and national interests. For what is beyond our wisdom and threatens to create conflict, let us exercise dignified patience. We are in a transitional period. Democracies take time to grow and mature if, at all, they do. There will be others, who will continue with the issues we cannot resolve, and causes we fail to champion. Let us have faith in our future parliamentarians.
Then again, the issues at hand are not insurmountable, they are not personal. That we are both working towards the same end, should give us inspiration. We can resolve them as long as we truly respect each other and are motivated by our loyalty and commitment to the ‘Tsa-wa Sum’ (3 elements of statehood). To do so, we need to interact, understand and trust each other. That is why, after the last session, I offered to meet and dialogue with NC any time. That is why, despite lack of response, I wrote to remind again and, together with two of my Cabinet colleagues, called on all the National Council members in an informal sitting for over 3 & half hours of free and frank exchange of views. Mutual respect, I know, will give us the will and the genius, not only to resolve such small issues, but to leave a proud legacy of a truly vibrant and unique democracy as envisioned by our beloved Kings.
The royal government is open to continue our discussion. It is not enough that we come together only during joint sessions. There will be times, often, when the government must inform the Council of developments of national importance. Likewise, the Council will need to obtain the views of the government on matters of significance that concern its members. We must meet, consult and agree or respectfully disagree. Let us find the best way to do it in the name of our King, country and people.
Source: Kuenselonline
We, the members of Parliament (National Council & National Assembly), see ourselves as having been gifted to play a historic role in establishing the roots of a unique Bhutanese democracy. Our two houses fully appreciate the need to work together, even as we must often differ in the spirit and nature of a true democracy.
The non-participation of Ministers in the National Council (NC) question hour, under the present arrangement, is in the larger interest of democracy and in adherence to the spirit and principles of the Constitution. To interpret and publicise this decision as a sign of fear on the part of ministers or as a lack of esteem for NC is to be disrespectful to the ministers and to misinform the people on the intentions of the National Assembly (NA) and the Cabinet.
The position of the royal government was made clear to the NC last year. Following reasons remain valid:
• The Constitution does not require ministers to attend NC question hour sessions. That the Cabinet must report to and be answerable to NC, since it is collectively accountable to parliament, is a flawed argument. The people need to understand the truth that neither NC nor NA by itself constitutes the parliament. Parliament is comprised of three elements and includes His Majesty the King, who is the third and highest. That is why no bill passed by both houses can become an Act unless it receives Royal assent.
• The NC Act does not require a minister to answer questions. Unlike the NA Act, which states very clearly that a minister shall respond in person to questions, section 131 of the NC Act states “an interpellation requires the government (not minister) to present an opinion, either orally or in writing”. Section 136 further states: “questions of national importance shall be listed in category 1 and shall require written answers to be given.” The two Acts were passed in the same session of Parliament and these differences were made to ensure that ministers are not obligated. What the public has not been told is that the ministers have very respectfully submitted their responses to NC in writing.
• What is also not made known is that he Cabinet ministers had decided to go to NC to present personally the government bills as a mark of respect. Lyonpo Zimba, who was half way to the NC to make his presentation on the day of the first question hour, was told not to come by the NC secretariat as they had adjourned because Lyonpo Minjur had not come for question hour. Since then, the ministers have had to cancel such presentations.
All the questions sent to the ministers were very simple and related to development and administrative matters. These included: why ‘Ngenba Guzom’ government holiday had been cancelled; why Gomphu Kora was not under the administration of Trashiyangtse rabdey; human-wildlife conflict; joining of a farm road; bridge for a power tiller track, etc. Such matters are the responsibility of NA MPs, who are bound directly to the voters and belong to the house that forms the government and where the Cabinet sits. It is in the NA that ministers are specifically required by law to answer such questions. In addition, the people always submit their questions directly to NA through the Dzongkhag Tshogdes. One does not see the need to ask similar questions through another house or channel where, in any case, decisions cannot be arrived at, as in NA.
Section 6 of the NC Act states “The NC shall not be bound by voters or interest groups and shall function in a non-partisan manner in their Parliamentary work.” This means that NC is not to entertain direct requests from their constituencies, unlike their political counterpart. Our people need to know that NC members are not their direct representatives. Such questions should be forwarded to NA.
It has been suggested that, as a good will gesture, the ministers should go to the NC question hour. Three good reasons prevent them from doing so:
• Firstly, it would undermine the vital role of NC as a ‘house of review’. When NC intervenes by questioning government ministers on administrative and developmental matters, it influences or alters their actions and becomes an involved party, thereby losing objectivity and its value as a house of review.
• Secondly, it would be wrong for this government to tie future governments to a procedure that would hinder their functioning. Future governments may not be as strong as ours. Imagine Q&A sessions in the NA itself, where the ruling government has just a small majority built out of an unholy alliance among several parties from the primaries. To further subject ministers to questions on anything it does or intends to do in an NC that, in future, could become politically motivated or even inquisitorial, would make government falter.
• Then there is the third reason. It is possible that the parliamentary sessions, in future, will need to be extended beyond the current periods as bills keep piling. Ministers would then be spending their time preparing responses and running between the two houses, fearful of taking decisions with little time for real work. The NC Act states, “Question time ... shall be held such number of times...... as the NC deems expedient”.
It is important to note that NA, both opposition and government, is directly associated with the executive. It must aid, oppose or question the government. This house, among others, must decide on government programmes in the annual budget form. It naturally follows that NA becomes accountable for government actions. Therefore, if the government fails and falls, the entire house is dissolved and its MPs must return to the people for their verdict. As NA is, thus, involved with the executive, there is the need for the other house, NC, to serve as an objective, apolitical house of review for the good of democracy. Its role as the house of moderation and long term vision beyond the five year interests of governments must not be compromised.
The NC cannot and must not seek direct involvement in government in the interest of its special mandate of review. It has no direct accountability to the people. For this reason, it is privileged to serve its full term even when a government falls. Questioning ministers on behalf of voters and drawing itself into the functions of the executive, is not only a violation of section 6 of its own Act but deprives our unique democratic system of its vital review mechanism.
The National Council needs to understand its mandate. It needs to function within the principles and bounds cir*****scribed by the Constitution, even though it has the capacity to do more. It must not replicate NA. Its search for a greater role to check strong governments from becoming autocratic or excessive is a noble thought but not well founded. Seeking an expanded role beyond what is prescribed by the Constitution is dangerous in itself.
No governments in Bhutan and in our unique democracy can become tyrannical or dictatorial. That is what is unique about the democracy that our Kings have bequeathed to us. Ours is an intelligent, self-correcting, holistic system within an immaculately conceived constitutional frame. With foresight, all the vital constitutional instruments of checks and balance were put in place even before the first government was elected. I list below a range of such institutional arrangements:
• The independent judiciary ensures no government body or individual can act against the law with impunity and that no one is above law.
• Constitutional bodies, namely, the Election Commission, the ACC, the Royal Audit Authority and the RCSC carry out oversight functions, ensuring that government and parties stay within rules, that they do not misuse power, privilege and public resources.
• The Public Accounts Committee of parliament, comprising both NA and NC members, check on government expenditure and performance as well.
• On the fear of human rights violations, a NA Human Rights Committee has been instituted and its effectiveness assured by electing as its chair, a member of the opposition party.
• Making rural poor victims of neglect and wrongdoing is just as impossible because of decentralisation. Further, the rural-biased 10th five-year programme bears testimony to RGoB’s commitment to social, economic and health empowerment of rural people so that they can exercise their political power responsibly and without compulsions.
• As for the possibility of doing selective favours to certain sections of people or buying votes by gifting state properties, our policy is that gifting of even a needle belonging to the state is the prerogative of the King alone, exercised in the form of Kidus for the needy.
• RGoB must mobilise development assistance on the merit of its policies and good governance. This makes the royal government fully susceptible and amenable to the scrutiny and checks of the international community.
• Keeping people in the dark and misinformed is made impossible by a media corpus that is growing in capacity, diversity and assertiveness.
• Above all, our revered monarch will never allow the worst that happens in many ‘democracies’ to ever be suffered by the Bhutanese people.
So then, even as the spectre of ‘tyranny of majority’ and the need for NC to play an expanded role is raised, our democracy is not so vulnerable and threatened by the government that the people have elected with unanimous trust. We must not undermine the capacity of our oversight mechanisms and be led to believe that, without the NC assuming further check and balance roles, the government will become authoritarian. In the making of laws, should not the role of this legislative body, which includes five eminent persons, be to provide wisdom and moderation through the process of calm and contemplative deliberations? Should it not be objectively reviewing and reporting on the actions of the government and on matters affecting the ‘the security’, ‘sovereignty’ and ‘interests of the nation and people’ as mandated by the Constitution in section 2 of Article 11?
We understand and appreciate the desire of NC members to elevate our National Council. But are we not aware that it already enjoys status as part of the highest institution in our democratic constitutional monarchy? Elevation does not come from role expansion, especially if it were to undermine good principles embedded in the Constitution. Being situated at the highest possible level, neither NA nor NC can rise any higher. We, as MPs, can only fall or remain elevated, depending on how we conduct our sacred duties and are judged by the King and people we serve.
Without demonstrating enough will for conciliation, one house has shown persistence in building issues for ‘constitutional crises’ and judicial intervention. Others are joining in to fuel public disenchantment and a thinly-veiled, first ever parliamentary walk-out has been staged in a country that has never been plagued by the ‘strike’ culture. These have not been heart-warming. When the dust settles; when reflection follows emotions and fleeting biases; when good sense prevails, such indiscretions will not earn elevation for NC and NA nor parliament.
History tells us that we Bhutanese can excel in conciliation and are rich in its traditions. We can find solutions without compromising principles and national interests. For what is beyond our wisdom and threatens to create conflict, let us exercise dignified patience. We are in a transitional period. Democracies take time to grow and mature if, at all, they do. There will be others, who will continue with the issues we cannot resolve, and causes we fail to champion. Let us have faith in our future parliamentarians.
Then again, the issues at hand are not insurmountable, they are not personal. That we are both working towards the same end, should give us inspiration. We can resolve them as long as we truly respect each other and are motivated by our loyalty and commitment to the ‘Tsa-wa Sum’ (3 elements of statehood). To do so, we need to interact, understand and trust each other. That is why, after the last session, I offered to meet and dialogue with NC any time. That is why, despite lack of response, I wrote to remind again and, together with two of my Cabinet colleagues, called on all the National Council members in an informal sitting for over 3 & half hours of free and frank exchange of views. Mutual respect, I know, will give us the will and the genius, not only to resolve such small issues, but to leave a proud legacy of a truly vibrant and unique democracy as envisioned by our beloved Kings.
The royal government is open to continue our discussion. It is not enough that we come together only during joint sessions. There will be times, often, when the government must inform the Council of developments of national importance. Likewise, the Council will need to obtain the views of the government on matters of significance that concern its members. We must meet, consult and agree or respectfully disagree. Let us find the best way to do it in the name of our King, country and people.
Source: Kuenselonline
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment