INTEGRITY FIRST : What is the role minority in Parliament?

Tanzania adopted multiparty democracy in 1992. It held its first multiparty General Election in October 1995. This saw our Parliament having a minority section since 1965. For three solid decades, Tanzania followed a one party system.

For 25 years since reintroduction of multiparty democracy, Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) has remained strong and dominance of representation in the National Assembly. It has always enjoyed the majority, thus allowing them to pass or block any decision as they wish even when that is against the national interests.

According to standing orders of the National Assembly, all important decisions are reached through voting.

Now what is the role of minority in the House if at all it can neither influence nor affect interests of their fellow majority?

In principle, the presence and contribution of the minority opposition in the House is supposed to influence direction and decisions of the government but this can only be possible if all sides are after wider interests of our country. However, when majority and minority are competing for their only political interests, then, what the nation gets is what is determined by decision of majority only.

For all 25 years of the existence of multiparty democracy in the country, political opposition remained a toothless dog. CCM majority in the National Assembly has both pro and cons. For whatever rate of development Tanzania has recorded, CCM deserves credibility and whatever plundering of natural resources like minerals the country has been experiencing since pro independence, too, CCM deserves condemnation.

Under Tanu and then CCM, president of Tanzania has a direct hand in the National Assembly because he is its first part. Too, his government forms crucial part of National Assembly under the headship of Prime Minister. Hence, majority of ruling party and its government enjoys unbeatable team in the House whatever a political match they play.

Why Tanzanians have been returning CCM majority in the National Assembly, is a tough question but too, is not within the scope of this article.

Nevertheless, the role of majority in the House is to defend their manifesto and whatever the government brings in for endorsement. Thus, the majority can pass very bad laws or plans, simply because, for them, it is almost a blasphemy to take anything from the opposition. Minority on its part is to criticise the majority and its government, whether constructively or destructively, depends on the issue on Speaker’s table.

This is the situation which sometimes makes the roles of both majority and minority in the House unimportant one for nation’s development.

Concentrates overshadowed Budget debate

This time around, during budgetary meeting, the National Assembly was massively occupied by President John Magufuli’s emerged agenda of mineral concentrates and hence drove all MPs out of the tabled budget.

Instead of discussing critically the main budget tabled before them, all MPs were exchanging spurious statements in the House and thus made this year debate on budget a dull one.

The entire majority in the House, arguably supported President’s intervention in holding containers full of concentrates in the Port of Dar es Salaam until every penny the government deserves from concentrates is full paid. While this move by majority was expected, but it was also expected this side in the House would at least recognise and appreciate efforts made by various activists whom some of them are on opposition side like Tundu Lissu, David Kafulila and many others made in the past.

Minority on their part didn’t directly oppose President’s move, but their concern was on long indifference shown by the majority and the government in power on formulating poor mineral policies which ended up in legislating poor statutes which in turn used by both foreign investors and the government officials to shrewdly make business contracts that mostly favoured investors.

While most of Tanzanians anticipated unity of the House in the issue of concentrates, but because of political differences based on lack of respect among the two sides, each side went on to make spiteful remarks on their own, politicising the matter.

Majority had a reason to make an apology

However, had the majority from beginning appreciated the role played by minority in the past, when were opposing mineral bills in the National Assembly since 1998, such by itself would have brought both camps together.

For instance, Mr James Mbatia reminded the majority in Parliament the importance of apologizing as his Catholic Church did to scientist, Galileo whom it condemned in 1636 but the Church after realizing the truth; issued an apology in 1992. Galileo knew that the Earth rotates the sun but the church believed the opposite.

Mwalimu Nyerere taught us the importance of apologising and correcting our mistakes. Unfortunately, neither president Magufuli nor his majority MPs appreciated contribution of the minority in opposing mineral and Gas Bills brought to the National Assembly under certificate of urgency as the root cause of what Magufuli is fighting now. The majority sung songs of patriotism to JPM. Hypocrisy!

Should the minority be punished for not supporting 2017/18 budget?

The passing of the main budget of 2017/18 was democratically done according to the Article 94 (2) of the constitution of 1977; which in part says:--“every question proposed for decision in the National Assembly shall be determined by a majority of votes of the Members of Parliament present and voting’’.

This fiscal year budget therefore was passed by majority by 260 votes and opposed by minority by 95 votes.

Surprisingly, after a voting task has been done, several MPs from the majority camp raised an argument, wanting MPs from the minority side to be punished for voting against the budget. They went as far as proposing to the Speaker that the constituencies under opposition MPs should be denied share of this year’s budget because their representatives didn’t support it.

It was so awkward seeing MPs ask such spurious questions on an issue which was already decided democratically through voting in accordance with the constitution and standing orders. I think those questions were not needed because, minority are not legally bound to support anything brought in the House. Minority side had their own alternative budget of Sh29 trillion against a government budget of Sh31.7 trillion. Thus, each side had something to argue for; an argument which was legally settled through voting.

Nevertheless, minority’s arguments for not supporting government budget were pegged on several facts. First, the development part of the fiscal year 2016/17 budget was implemented around 38 per cent only. So, it was useless this year to go for higher budget. Second, they argued, the national Budget is still dependent of donor contribution almost by 12 per cent while knowing that even the previous one was not released wholly and in time. Thus, if these facts were not taken by the government which is responsible for running the country, then opposition had no reason to support the 2017/18; though they cannot prevent its implementation.

Thus, arguments of CCM MPs and Speaker that minority were irresponsible for not supporting the budget which they too will depend on were illogical.

Role of majority during budget debate

The government and its majority side also had reasons on why they tabled bigger budget, irrespective of poor performance in the outgoing one. Thus, one can be tempted to believe that there were spurious arguments from both sides on the issue of budget. However, it’s the role of the majority in the House to make sure the budget is approved; otherwise they might be risking their legality and the government in power.

Once a budget is approved, it is nonsense to question its appropriation on grounds of who supported. It becomes the budget of all Tanzanians whether they like it or not.

Last, but not least, the citizenry deserves services whether the budget is passed by majority and opposed by the minority.

Whoever opted to go for yes vote or no vote or even abstaining from voting was exercising his voting right.

That is how multiparty democracy works.

The author is a lawyer/journalist. He can be reached at [email protected]