Performance of some ministers at question time pathetic

In the last couple of weeks, I took time to observe question time proceedings in the National Assembly and came to the conclusion that some of our policy-makers do not take seriously their public accountability obligations.

Source: Performance of some ministers at question time pathetic – NewsDay Zimbabwe June 24, 2016

John Makamure

Question time is one of the major instruments used by parliaments the world over to exercise executive oversight.

Executive oversight is one of the three core functions of Parliament. The other two are law making and representation. Executive oversight entails the review and monitoring of operations and activities undertaken and implemented by the Executive. Parliament performs executive oversight by scrutinising government policies, programmes and expenditure plans in order to ensure that they are in line with legislative intent and are governed by documented policies and procedures. This is done by, among other things, making inputs into and approving and monitoring the national budget.

Question time in the National Assembly takes place every Wednesday. This segment allows Members of Parliament to fire questions to ministers on issues to do with government policy. Ministers are expected to provide well-informed and substantive responses to questions and allow debate to be robust enough.

Generally, the MPs must be commended for asking questions of critical public importance. However, it is the nature of responses from ministers that can be described as pathetic. I could not believe it that some ministers appear not to be on top of policy developments in the ministries they preside over. In most cases, the ministers take a defensive approach, especially if a question is coming from an MP who belongs to a different political party. The end result is that the public is deprived of their right to bring policy-makers to account for their actions.

So, we may have formal accountability mechanisms such as question time in place, but they are not necessarily made to work because of the behaviour of some policy-makers. This explains why many good laws and policies have been enacted in Zimbabwe, but they are not always enforced or monitored. Public agencies are given mandates and funds, but their performance may not be properly assessed and suitable action taken to hold them accountable. Public audits of accounts and parliamentary reviews have been done, but follow up actions may leave much to be desired because the ministers are not meeting their side of the bargain.

Policy makers must be reminded that public accountability is an obligation and not an option. Public accountability or social accountability pertains to the obligations of persons or entities entrusted with public resources to be answerable for the fiscal, managerial and programme responsibilities that have been conferred on them and to report to those that have conferred these responsibilities. Accountability plays a particularly important role in the public sector. It is about giving an answer for the way in which one has spent money, exercised power and control, mediated rights and used discretions vested by law in the public interest. It is fundamental to any system of government that those to whom such powers and responsibilities are given are required to exercise them in the public interest fairly, and according to the law.

Trading insults and deliberately not providing substantive responses during sessions such as question time flies in the face of the concept of public accountability. Such behaviour is also in contravention of the Constitution, in particular section 194, which outlines the basic values and principles governing public administration. Some of these principles are that public administration must be accountable to Parliament and to the people and that transparency must be fostered by providing the public with timely, accessible and accurate information.

Citizens have a right to public or social accountability. The right to social accountability places an explicit duty on members of the executive arm of government, public officials and private service providers to justify their decisions and performance regarding the manner in which their use of public resources has affected the progressive realisation of socio-economic rights. It entails the right of citizens to obtain justifications and explanations for the use of public resources from those entrusted with the responsibility for their management in order to progressively realise human rights. Officials and service providers have the corresponding duty not only to produce such justifications, but to take corrective action in instances where public resources are not effectively utilised. Citizens have the right to demand these justifications and explanations from the State when it fails to provide them adequately and corrective action where required. The public exercises this right through their elected representatives. This is what representative democracy entails.

Ministers must be reminded that the public is expecting them to implement policies that address the pressing problem of poverty and inequality. The major obstacle to poverty alleviation is poor governance, which includes not simply corruption, but also poor performance of government officials in their management of public resources and a lack of political will to act against underperforming officials. The poor management of public resources translates directly into poor public service delivery implementation, and, thus, obviously undermines poverty alleviation policies.

Let me end by quoting one scholar, Atifete Jahjaga, who said “democracy must be built through open societies that share information. When there is information, there is enlightenment. When there is debate, there are solutions. When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law and accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation”.

l John Makamure is the executive director of the Southern African Parliamentary Support Trust.
Feedback: john.makamure@gmail.com