The National Electoral Commission has already approved a long list of Institutions that will be allowed to participate in the exercise of proving what is described as “vote education” to the prospective voters for the October 2020 general elections. I am personally not aware of the topics that are taught in such voter education classes; but I would like to make a small contribution in connection therewith; for whatever little value it may add. What the voters must know: The President needs a majority in Parliament.
In order to achieve smooth and conflict-free operations of our ‘Parliamentary system’ of government; the relevant general election must give the elected President a clear majority of MPS in the National Assembly. Thus, it is my humble submission, that this point should constitute a significant part of the ‘voter education’ programmes that are being offered to our voters, in preparation for the forthcoming October 28th general elections.
‘Voter education’ is primarily intended to enhance the voter’s awareness of the true meaning of the outcomes which may result from his vote, so that it may enable him to vote wisely, and in a way that will enable him to achieve the kind of outcome which will be of maximum benefit to the country’s governance system.
Unfortunately however, in the past general elections, some of those who participated in providing ‘voter education’ were not very helpful to the voters in respect of the need to enhance their understanding of this important aspect of multi-party elections, because the most common message that was being delivered to the voters , was typically telling them : “ to listen carefully to the candidates’ campaign speeches, and then vote for the candidate of your choice”. This, indeed, is good and correct advise, and that was the message that was being delivered to the voters during the by-gone days of the ‘one-party State elections. However, it is wholly unsuitable for the multi-party elections, and can even be totally misleading, for the following reasons:-
In the multi-party political dispensation, the purpose of a general election is to enable the voters to select what will become the country’s Ruling party for the following five years. In other words, voters are expected to make a choice between the competing political parties, and certainly NOT between the individual the candidates. This is so because the Westminster Parliamentary system of government which we inherited from Britain, is known as “Government by political party”. This means that it is the political party that wins the general election, which forms the country’s Government and not the persons who won the election in their individual capacities.
Thus, it would be much more accurate for the voter education providers, to urge the voters “to vote for “ the political party of his choice”, rather than for “the candidate of his choice”.
That is the reason why political parties produce their election manifestos, in which they outline their policy options and programmes, in order to persuade voters to vote for the party with the best policies
Hence, in this article, we will endeavour to explain a very fundamental Constitutional point, which is that for the smooth operation of our parliamentary system of government , the newly elected President needs to have a majority of MPS in the National Assembly. Any other election outcome, is bound to create difficult problems in the operations of the parliamentary governance system.
For that reason, that the voters should be made to understand, that if they decide to vote for the Presidential candidate of any given political party, they should also vote for the parliamentary candidate of that same party; in order to avoid a situation in which the President faces an Opposition-dominated National Assembly, that is to say, in which the majority of its members belong to a political party or parties, other than that of the President himself.
This is important, and necessary, just because if the President does not have a majority in the National Assembly, there are several provisions in the Constitution of the United Republic, which have the capacity to generate conflict, and could therefore give rise to instability, in the process of the country’s governance; such as the following:-
(i) The appointment of the Prime Minister.
Article 5i(2) of the Constitution provides as follows:
“As soon as possible, and in any case within fourteen days after assuming office, the President shall appoint a member of Parliament elected from a constituency, and from a political party having a majority of members in the National Assembly, or, if no political party has a majority, a person who appears to have the support of the majority of the members, to be Prime Minister of the United Republic”.
Thus, because the President is obliged to appoint the Prime Minister from the majority party in Parliament, if such party is not his own party, he will be obliged to negotiate with the leaders of that majority party, in order to agree on a candidate for this appointment. Two possible problems may arise. One is that in the event that such negotiations will take longer than the mandatory 14 days, there will have occurred a breach of the Constitution, and this is clearly against the principles of good governance.
The other problem is that the Constitution requires the Prime Minister’s appointment to be ratified by the National Assembly. Thus, if the President attempts to appoint a Prime Minister who has not been approved by the relevant Opposition leaders, his appointment will obviously not be ratified by the National Assembly, a situation which will create be conflict between the President and the National Assembly, which is definitely undesirable, for the country’s management and good governance.
(ii) The functions of the Prime Minister.
The functions of the Prime Minister are specified in articles 52 and 53 of the Constitution of the United Republic; which require the Prime Minister “ to perform or cause to be performed any matter or matters which the President directs to be done”; and further that the Prime Minister “shall be accountable to the President for the exercise of his authority”.
I should perhaps point out, that these provisions were made during the period of the ‘One-Party’ system of government, in which case they could not create any such problems. But under the present multi-party system, in any cases where the President and the Prime Minister happen to belong to different ideological camps, and therefore will have been elected on the basis of different election manifestos; these are obviously potential areas of conflict, which can be avoided by the voters giving the elected President a comfortable majority in the National Assembly.
(iii) The Legislative functions of Parliament.
The process of enacting laws involves both the President and the National Assembly, for it provides that No Bill which is passed by the National Assembly can become law without the President’s assent.
In enacting this provision, the Constitution makers appear to have foreseen the possibility where the President would be unwilling to give his assent to a certain Bill, that is presumably why they made provision (in article 97 thereof) for dealing with such a situation, if and when it occurs. Article 97 provides that the President must return such Bill to the National Assembly, together with a statement of his reasons for withholding assent. And if the National Assembly, after considering the President’s reasons, again adopts the Bill with a two-thirds majority, the President, in that case, must give his assent to the Bill, or if he still withholds his assent, he must dissolve Parliament in order to pave the way for new elections to be held.
Under normal circumstances, no one expects such a major conflict to arise, and this would appear to be a purely hypothetical provision. But still, it is a potential area for conflict between the President and the National Assembly, which could best be avoided at the time of voting, by giving the President a comfortable majority in the National Assembly.
(iv) The provisions relating to the quorum in the House.
Article 94 of the Constitution provides that the quorum at every sitting of the National Assembly shall be ‘half of all the members of the House’; and further that every question which is proposed for decision in the National Assembly ‘shall be determined by a majority of the members present and voting’, except where it is provided otherwise.
These provisions, perhaps unwittingly, create an opportunity for a National Assembly whose majority is in opposition to the President to embarrass him, for example, by instructing a number of their members to absent themselves from a sitting of the House, when an important government business, such as the annual government budget, is due to be approved. This would make the ensuing decision illegal, for having been adopted in the absence of a quorum; and could be successfully challenged in a court of law. Hence, Voter education should also address this problem, which can be avoided by the voters giving the Presidential candidate of their choice, a comfortable majority of MPS in the National Assembly at the time of voting.
Learning from history: the Presidential Elections Bill of 1962.
Our legislative history shows that the 1962 Presidential Elections Act, was specifically designed to achieve this particular objective of giving the President a guaranteed majority in the National Assembly; for it had included an innovative provision of pairing the Presidential candidate with the Parliamentary candidates. The procedure to be used was a kind of indirect election, whereby every candidate who stood for election to Parliament, was required to make a statutory declaration, indicating the name of the Presidential candidate whom he supports. Thus, under this arrangement, when the results of the Parliamentary elections are announced, the Presidential candidate who secures the support of more than half of all the members who were elected to Parliament, is declared to have been elected President.
This meant, in effect, that while voting for the Parliamentary candidate, the voters would, at the same time, be voting for the President. This arrangement was obviously intended to ensure that the person who was elected President, was guaranteed to have majority support among the MPs in the National Assembly, in order to secure the desired smooth operations of the government machinery.
However, this innovative system was never used, as it was rejected during debate in the National Assembly, and had to be replaced with the more popular method of electing the President directly by all the registered voters.
We said at the beginning of this article, that voter education is intended to enhance the voters’ general awareness of the outcomes that may result from his vote. Our electoral history has shown that the voters’ tendency is to vote for the individual candidate, regardless of his political party.
Thus, in the particular circumstances of this year’s general election, wherein the factor of President Magufuli’s popularity will most likely dominate, some voters may be ready to vote for President Magufuli, but be tempted to vote for a candidate “of his choice” who happens to belong to an Opposition party. This presentation will, hopefully, be of some help to them.
(will continue next week)
piomsekwa@gmail.com /0754767576
Source: Daily News and Cde Msekwa.
No comments:
Post a Comment