THE SILENT VOICE : Parliamentarians are free to vote for, against national budget

Since the reintroduction of multiparty democracy in 1992, Parliament has been conducting its business in accordance with the Constitution, 1977 and the law and taking into account the presence and coexistence of ruling and opposition Members of Parliament (MPs).

While ruling party MPs almost always tend to support whatever the government proposes with or without changes, opposition MPs tend to oppose or criticise it and instead propose an alternative.

Multiparty democracy includes freedom to say yes or no, or vote for or against. When an issue is under debate, CCM and opposition MPs give reasons why they are or against it or why they want it improved before they vote for.

This means, when debating an issue each MP sticks to their viewpoints for they think (if at all they do) are well reasoned and in the public interest.

Sometimes they may reach a consensus, but this is not guaranteed. This is because they are people’s representatives and they should speak on their behalf.

When it comes to debating and passing a budget or a Bill, MPs by virtue of Section 3 of the Parliamentary Immunities, Powers and Privileges Act, 1988 are entitled to freedom of speech and debate and by virtue of Standing Order 107(2) are entitled to publicly vote for or against it.

This has been the tradition of the Parliament of the United Republic of Tanzania as it is the case in other Commonwealth of Nations and since Tanzania is a multiparty democracy by virtue of Article 3(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 (as amended until 2005), a budget, a decision or a Bill is passed or not passed after the majority MPs vote for or against it respectively.

Speaking on the art of reasoning and persuasion, American Founding Father and principal author of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the United States Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) put it well. He said: “In a republican nation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance”.

So, it is important to note that, when debating it is up to both CCM and opposition MPs to convince their rivals if at the end they want to be supported on the point they stand for. Nobody should be judged right or wrong for deciding to vote for or against something respectively.

A few days ago, however, after debating the 2017/18 national budget came a time for voting for or against as has always been the case. As it often happens, all ruling party MPs, who were present voted for the budget without exception, including two CUF MPs, while the rest of opposition MPs voted against.

In my opinion, all MPs who, voted for exercised their freedom to vote for what they were convinced was the right thing to do and those, who voted against too exercised their freedom to vote against what they were convinced was the right thing to do. Actually, nobody was wrong to vote for or against the budget due to the very fact that whenever there is voting we expect some MPs to vote for, some to vote against and others may decide to abstain. None is compelled to vote against one’s will or conscience.

Then, a point was raised that, since the minority MPs voted against the budget, ministers should take note of that and deny their constituencies (opposition MPs) the development budget.

Unfortunately, Speaker of the National Assembly Job Ndugai, who was supposed to be impartial, backed his colleagues against rival MPs.

But each political camp in the Parliament votes for its proposed budget against its rival’s.

Going further, minister of State in the President’s Office (Regional Administration and Local Government) George Simbachawene said the time had changed and citing India’s approach, he said although it was also a Commonwealth nation, there was no voting against, except for and abstaining, when passing the national budget.

This, according to me, is fallacious. It is absurd to vote for something simply because others have voted for it.

All in all, ruling and opposition party MPs are both free to vote for or against a budget, an issue or Bill because in a multiparty democracy the majority win and the minority lose unless they reach a consensus to vote unanimously for or against the same.

Exercising one’s freedom to vote for or against something or even abstain from voting does not make one wrong because that is what voting means.