Nearly all parties in
A great way to prove to the Lebanese people that the Lebanese government is working on their behalf would be to institute the parliamentary mechanism of Question Time.
In
To make the Lebanese government more transparent and appear as if it is working on behalf of the electorate, parliamentarians should air their grievances to the prime minister and his cabinet publicly.
Finance Minister Jihad Azour does a phenomenal job. His ministry is the most transparent and is persuading other ministries to follow the same path. Yet, most Lebanese citizens believe that the Finance Ministry is troubled, steals money, and fails to work in the interests of Lebanese citizens. Opponents of Azour nominate buffoons to serve in the post Azour commands brilliantly. Question time will give the public the opportunity to hear Azour’s opponents attack him, and allow Azour to explain that he is doing an excellent job.
Ministers improperly executing their jobs will most likely be motivated to take a more active role in daily ministerial operations. Individuals unqualified to lead a cabinet post might be dissuaded from hubristically demanding a highly complex and important portfolio.
Hopefully, technocrats of all sects and stripes would be the beneficiaries of this mechanism.
5 comments:
Herein lies the problem...Do you think for ex. Berri would allow Fneish to get up and explain why they have hundreds of people on payroll who never showed up to work? Or why dahieh never pays EDL bills? I remember ghazi Aridi, a few years ago wandered into his Ministry (of information) and wanted to locate who were the employees who were making $5,000?month...
Lebanese Q'n period would work only if you have a fair Speaker who woulf not shut down comments like a thug and if you have "
parties" with nothing to hide! until then all the Ali Baba's thieves will plaed the fifth..
Yes, providing it doesn't become simply a rhetorical platform. The real success of Question Time in the UK is that it has fostered a 'culture of question time', as it were.
Backbenchers from unheard of constituencies asking technical questions about funding settlements for local government is hardly sexy TV. But it is the grind of politics, and QT reassures people that the government at all levels is subject to scrutiny.
Committees are important too. The US has had these for a long time, the UK for about 20 years.
Other countries that inherited their parliamentary system from the UK also have Question Time, notably my own (Ireland). Ours has developed a bit differently to that of Britain's, in that MPs can ask very specific questions ("why did my constituent, Mr X, not get a grant to do Y?") as well as broader ones on government policy etc.
I think having a Speaker who is relatively depoliticised is important in getting QT to work, and you are going to have problems in that area so long as the confessional carve up of the top jobs effectively means that the Speaker is always going to be the leader of Amal. At the same time, if QT was ever brought in then it would be difficult for any Speaker to disallow questions for nakedly political reasons.
One thing to remember about how QT works here is that the Government are not under any legal requirement to actually answer questions, but it would look so bad if they did not that they effectively have to.
Committees should be an easy one to sell, as it means more offices for politicians and so more money for them. Becoming a committee chairperson is a great consolation prize for not becoming a Minister in my country.
Post a Comment