Parliament doesn't need you as a cheerleader

What you need to know:

  • Parliament must be perceived by the people as the outlet of political pressures, a social valve that lowers social tensions and prevents violence by imposing dialogue.
  • Once the debate is polarised, Parliament stops legislating and overseeing in the interest of the common good, which is no longer ‘common’, since it has been kidnapped by narrow ethnic interests.
  • Over-politicising Parliament may seem natural or even normal and logical to any political master, but it destroys the possibility of any meaningful discussion based on constructive ideology.

We worry too much about government. We complain, curse and swear, yet a government is a reflection of its people.

Parliament is a reflection of who we are; a mirror of our beliefs and values. The Executive is a reflection of how we work, of our work ethic. The Judiciary is a reflection of how we behave and react when things go wrong, our commitment to the rule of law, or its failure.

Last week I wrote about populism and how dangerous an unrestricted Executive can be when it is unchecked by Parliament and unrestrained by the Judiciary.

This was a follow-up of the previous piece, on democracy and identity, which concluded with a painful truth, “The most dangerous tyrant is a democratic leader with no sensible and mature opposition.”

The Judiciary has no opposition role. When a government blames the Judiciary for its woes, it is going against the very same laws that brought it to power, simply looking for an easy electoral escape and shifting blame to those who are not elected.

A good judiciary must balance courage and caution, while ensuring a faithful service to truth and justice. It must interpret the laws passed by Parliament within a social context, while avoiding opinion polls, public relations or political convenience. Opposition is the duty of Parliament.

Parliament has three key functions: First is the political function, where it balances powers and interests, ideologies and ethnicity.

Parliament must be perceived by the people as the outlet of political pressures, a social valve that lowers social tensions and prevents violence by imposing dialogue, replacing weapons with the negotiating table, and fists with the pen.  Under the political function, Parliament seeks political solutions to political problems.

Second is the legislative function. This, though perhaps the best known function of Parliament, is not its most important one. In our modern democracies, law-making has become rather positivist and pragmatic. Laws are seldom contextualised and are often carbon-copied from different countries.

This means that the legislative function is not usually driven by a genuine desire for justice and cultural identity but convenience. It is the result of a pragmatic, short-term political agenda.

Third is the oversight function, which should lead Parliament to keep the Executive in check in accordance with the Constitution of Kenya. One of the driving tenets of the 2010 Constitution was giving Parliament wider powers over the Executive.

NO MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION

This applies to key presidential appointments, budgeting processes, expenditure approval, audits on government business and wide powers to summon people, including government officials, and investigate possible wrongs.

Over-politicising Parliament may seem natural or even normal and logical to any political master, but it destroys the possibility of any meaningful discussion based on constructive ideology.

It keeps throwing Parliament back to mundane, polarised ethnic debates whose effects are felt and suffered much later even if they may seem inoffensive.

When this overseeing function is over-politicised, Parliament loses its nature, betraying the key purposes for which it was elected. It is no longer able to oversee key appointments but simply gauges and measures the political balance of power. Meritocracy and integrity are thus jeopardised.

Institutions suffer as well. When the legislative function depends on the strength of the lobby, its justification, applicability, objectivity and social relevance are questioned and often compromised. All that matters then is the political use of law, which could be driven by a lobby group or other interested party.

Once the debate is polarised, Parliament stops legislating and overseeing in the interest of the common good, which is no longer ‘common’, since it has been kidnapped by narrow ethnic interests. Parliament then degenerates.

Degeneration affects the whole democratic process. The Executive grows into an amorphous all-powerful and abusive arm, and the Judiciary is guided by rotten interests that permeate legislation.

At that point, what could have been corruption becomes theft. This is why our current problem is not just corruption, but theft. 

THEFT OF A PEN

Corruption is a very specific evil. It is the use of shortcuts by taking undue advantage of influence and power. Certainly, it is a type of theft. But theft, strictly defined as the taking of someone else’s property, goes a notch higher.

Some years ago, a policeman stopped me as I was getting into Jomo Kenyatta International Airport. It was a routine check. As I stepped out of the car to open the boot, the policeman looked at my pen. He pointed his rifle at me and said "That's a nice pen, I like it. I want it."

The only thing that came to my mind was to say "Thanks, but it's my pen. To take it would be an act of theft, called robbery." Perhaps he was shocked by my answer. After all he was probably trying his luck without really intending to shoot me. 

At the word "theft" he froze and let it go. Perhaps that word tickled his conscience. It’s ugly. It’s incriminating. It makes us feel guilty.

Corruption thrives in impunity while theft thrives in broken social systems, with broken values. Corruption is easier to reverse. Reversing theft is more difficult, because it destroys the social fabric.

In this matter, Parliament plays a bigger role than we can imagine, and Parliamentary success is directly proportional to the intelligence of our vote, mine and yours.

Dr Franceschi is the dean of Strathmore Law School. [email protected], Twitter: @lgfranceschi