Section 1 of our Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land, states that Mauritius shall be a sovereign democratic State which shall be known as the Republic of Mauritius. Democracy is government by explanation said Arthur Balfour, the former British Prime Minister. And the late Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, summarized good governance in the following terms: “Good governance comprises the rule of law, effective state institutions, transparency and account- ability in the management of public affairs, respect for human rights and the participation of all citizens in the decisions that affect their lives.’’

Today can we say that the government and our public institutions, including Parliament, are functioning within the framework of democracy and good governance? Any reasonable person will obviously answer in the negative. Since 2019, the government, Parliament and all our public institutions have fallen short of all the criteria which should be guiding them in a democratic State. Public trust in a democratic system of government can only be sustained if it is open and an open government cannot flourish if it is captured by the personal and financial interests of the cronies of the ruling party.

The lack of transparency and accountability in government affairs, the opacity in our public institutions, the treatment of the members of the opposition and the way parliamentary questions are being answered, remind us that all the norms of good governance and democracy are being flouted with impunity. The encroachment of the government upon our public institutions, the non-observance of the rules, orders and practices of Parliament have simply paralysed their functioning.

There is a feeling of disgust in the population which is bad for our democracy and for the government itself. Why are they desperate to bend our democratic system to their will? Why is the Prime Minister and his Ministers using all kinds of subterfuge and tactics to avoid answering as many questions as possible or answering them by indulging in empty rhetoric to lose time in defiance of all the well establish principles of parliamentary practices? What are they afraid of? What is happening today, the least to say, is outrageous in a democracy.

The importance of parliamentary questions in our system of government

James Jerome, one of the Speakers of the House of Commons of Canada, had this to say on question time: “If the essence of Parliament is government accountability, then surely the essence of accountability is the Question Period.” The right to seek information from the government and the right to hold the government accountable are recognized as two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary government. Members of Parliament exercise these rights principally by asking questions in the House. The importance of questions in a parliamentary democracy like ours cannot be over-emphasized. And the search for clarification of information through questioning is a vital aspect of the duties of a member of Parliament.

Question Time constitutes a unique period on the agenda of Parliament. More than any other segment of the sitting of Parliament, Question Time is a snapshot of national political life and is closely followed by members of the public and the press, now that the debates in our Parliament are transmitted live. The public has an opportunity to observe the behaviour and demeanour of our elected members and ministers, as well as the Speaker and carve out their own impression. Question Time is where the government is held accountable to Parliament and through it to the public for its administrative policy and the conduct of its Ministers. Any Member can ask a question, but, normally, priority should be given to the opposition parties in the House to confront the government and hold it accountable for its actions. The Speaker must understand that asking questions is a right and not a privilege granted to members.

For Question Time to be effective and achieve its purpose, it is imperative that a maximum number of questions are reached and answered. For this to happen, Parliaments have either prescribed guidelines in their standing orders on the manner in which oral questions should be asked and replies given or adopted as part of its practice the several rulings given by Speakers on the issue. The time taken in putting and answering questions is so important, especially when question time is time-bound, that in some Parliaments the time taken to put a question and the time taken by the Minister to answer is regulated by the standing orders. For example, in one of the Commonwealth Parliaments the time for a member to ask a question is one minute and three minutes are granted to the Minister to give his reply. This is the reason Speakers have repeatedly stressed that answers to questions have to be as brief as possible. It is a well-established practice that answers should relate to the points raised in the question and not matters that are irrelevant or superfluous. And if the reply is too long it should be circulated instead of Ministers reading it orally.

Being given that Question Time is so precious, Speakers have even ruled that they will not entertain points of orders during question period, but they will do so at the end of question period so as not to impinge on its time, unless their interventions were to be sufficiently serious to require immediate consideration. Why are these well-established practices in the British House of Commons, in the Canadian House of Commons and the rulings and precedents of our own Parliament being deliberately ignored by the Speaker and the government?

Today it is unfortunate to see how our political system is being subverted and the democratic way of life to which we are used to, is being frustrated. In the interest of Parliamentary democracy and to ensure its proper functioning, it is opportune that a motion be introduced in Parliament for a debate to take place on the amendment of our standing orders and rules, and incorporate in it all the details that are necessary for the proper functioning of a democratic Parliament, especially in the light of the deplorable experience we have gone through since 2019.

It may also include orders for the answering of questions which relate to a matter of policy or raises a matter of public interest in Companies where the government has full or partial financial interest as is the case in India. In India, even frauds in nationalised Banks or unsound advances involving huge amounts, provided these have basis, can be subject to parliamentary questions. In other Parliaments standing orders are made to be under regular revision to include orders which have stemmed from rulings of Speakers and precedents. In Canada the rules provide for an annual parliamentary debate of its standing orders in order to decide whether they require any amendment. This is a pro- vision which ought to be inserted in our standing orders and rules.

In the meantime, may I humbly suggest that it is not too late for our Speaker to come to his senses. As presiding officer, he should realise that what is happening in our Parliament does not augur well for the government itself. Parliament is not only one of the pillars of our democracy but is also at the centre of our constitutional architecture and by far our most representative institution. It is not just a body to frame laws but a vibrant forum for the expression of different ideas and ideologies which is the very essence of democracy. He should also be conscious of the tremendous responsibility resting on his shoulders, to ensure that Parliament is allowed to function at its fullest in order to up- hold our democratic values.

It is appropriate that I quote what Mr G.V. Mavalankar, the first Speaker of Independent India, said about the institution of Parliament. He said: “For real democracy, one has not to look merely in the provisions of the Constitution or the rules and regulations made for the conduct of business in the Legislatures, but one has to foster a real democratic spirit in those who form the Legislature. If this fundamental is borne in mind, it will be clear that though questions would be decided by majorities, parliamentary government will not be possible if it is reduced to a mere counting of heads or hands. If we are to go merely by majority, we shall be fostering the seeds of facism, violence and revolt. If on the other hand, we could help foster a spirit of tolerance, a spirit of freedom of discussion and a spirit of understanding, we shall be fostering the spirit of democracy.”

Our Speaker should be guided by these lofty ideals and adopt the cardinal principle of Total Impartiality as has been practised by Speakers throughout the centuries. He should know, as Philip Laundy puts it in his book – The Office of the Speaker, 1964, – “Excepting only the Sovereign herself (referring to the Queen of England), no personage throughout the structure of British parliamentary government occupies a higher pinnacle of prestige than the Speaker of the House of Parliament”. This is the importance attached to the post and the status given to a Speaker in the hierarchy of personalities in our system of government. He should be aware that our system of government and Parliament is based on the British model. He has been given security of tenure in our Constitution to do his work, as Speaker, without any fear or favour. He should not make an abuse of his position and confuse his role with that of the executive. He should abide by the rules and orders of Parliament rather than by the rules and orders of the Ruler. As Speaker, he should act in a way that he leaves a legacy that the coming generation will be proud of as we are proud of the legacy left to us by our late Speaker Sir Harilall Vaghjee.

To conclude, in 1973, Georges Pompidou, the legendary President of the Republic of France, said, “A statesman is a politician who places himself at the service of his nation. A politician is a statesman who places the nation at his service.” Do we have more politicians than statesmen in our country today? Are we living in the era of Louis XIV who claimed “L’État c’est moi”?