In defense of question time

I read with keen interest recent media statements calling for the abolition of Question Time in the Malawi National Assembly on the argument that most questions lack substance and that some questions are fit for local councils. Crucially, it has been argued that some ministerial responses leave a lot to be desired – rendering Question Time meaningless and a sheer waste of time.

In jurisdictions following the Westminster model, a Head of Government (Prime Minister, Governor General or President) appears before Parliament to answer questions pertaining to the administrative actions of government.  Similarly, Cabinet Ministers are obliged to attend Parliament to answer questions pertaining to their individual portfolios.  In Malawi, the Republican Constitution variously obligates the President (section 89 subsection 4) and Cabinet Ministers (section 96 subsection 1 e) to answer questions in Parliament – the latter being the subject of discussion today.

Standing Orders of Parliament provide for two types of questions, namely; questions on notice as well as questions without notice but which, in the opinion of the Speaker, are of an urgent character.  In both instances, impromptu questions are asked to supplement the original question.  Commentators that have denounced Question Time have raised concerns with the content of some of the questions posed by backbenchers.  They have doubted the wisdom of asking questions at a national forum for provision of localized services such as toilets, village roads and boreholes. It has also been argued that some questions are not probing enough especially those falling on the lower levels of cognitive thinking as espoused in Bloom’s taxonomy.  Serious reservations have also been raised on the validity of some responses offered by cabinet ministers arguing that they fall short of selling government policies and programs.

These unsavoury factors have left some citizens with no option but to call for the abolition of Question Time in the august House. Understandably, the institution of Parliament is a manifesto of a democratic society and citizens have democratic rights to express their opinions on its functionality. Significantly, Parliament exists for the people and not vice versa.

Be that as it may, it is critical for the institution to exercise caution when discarding a long standing parliamentary tradition lest the institution get impeded in its core functions of legislation, representation and oversight.  Thus, the decision to either abolish or retain Question Time must be properly contextualized having due regard to the developments in Malawi and other Commonwealth Parliaments.

By convention, Question Time is a tool used by backbenchers in exercising oversight over the Executive organ of the State and, invariably, is one of the building blocks of parliamentary democracy. Scrutinizing the Executive, providing a snapshot of the mood of the general public on government policies and programs, ventilating grievances, protecting the rights of citizens by monitoring and exposing unconstitutional conduct including corruption, holding government answerable on the implementation of the approved budget and probing the political wits and shrewdness of individual cabinet ministers and exposing their weaknesses are some of the vital elements of Question Time. Noticeably, scrutiny of the Executive and Question Time are twin pillars of parliamentary democracy. At no time during the parliamentary sitting day is the accountability of government put to test than when MPs grill cabinet ministers on the floor of the House. Individually and collectively, they are held accountable for the administrative policies of government.  Failure by a cabinet minister to articulate issues is deemed to be failure of the whole government and a source of shame in its entirety. Thus, Question Time is usually an occasion of great interest not only to Members of Parliament themselves but to the media as well as the citizenry. All things considered, I would be very slow to join the group calling for the abolition of Question Time because doing so would be a great disservice to the core reasons for which the institution of Parliament is established. Notwithstanding the challenges noted by some commentators, Question Time remains the linchpin of parliamentary democracy. Discarding Question Time for the cited reasons would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. With Councillors in place after 20th May, it shall be necessary to have clear demarcation between questions for District/Town /City Councils and those for the National Assembly. In doing so, we shall keep the baby and throw out the dirty bathwater.—The Author is former speaker of the National Assembly