| |
|
It must be pointed out that the Speaker of the Parliament has no clothes, figuratively speaking. Why? Because, he/she, who is supposed to be the arbiter of democratic practice must be held up to a high standard, a standard which emphasizes that he/she should be morally and fully garbed. It is often said that lies travel fast, but that truth (as in TRUTH ) overtakes all lies in due time. This is precisely the case with the recent ugly spectacle inside the Somali parliament over the issue of peacekeeping forces. The Speaker of the Parliament, Shariif Aden has debased not only the constitutional order of his government, but he has also failed to uphold the principal procedural rules of parliamentary practice by forcing a motion with a questionable legal standing. Although the speaker's lies are bound to catch up with him, the President and the Prime Minister should stay the course because public opinion—from Ras Kamboni , Baydhaba , Mogadishu , Jowhar ( Villagio Di Abruzi ), Beletweyne , Galgayo , Bossassa to Hafun is with them--- despite the propaganda of the chattering classes. You would recall that on March 17, 2005 , the Executive branch of the government brought forth a motion to the Somali parliament that moved a motion for an authorization to deploy IGAD forces for peace enhancing and protection. ( It is important to denote that the government did not ask for forces to disarm the Somali militias, but rather, that it requested these IGD forces for the protection of the institutions of the government, and for no other purpose). The gist of the government's motion was to vote for an authorization of “ whether to invite African peace protection and support forces, or not”. The Speaker should have tabled the motion as is . He is the speaker and has no power to change the wordings of any motion brought forth in to parliament. His sole role is to rule, whether motions tabled in to parliament are deliberated according to procedural practices of parliament, which I may add, must follow internationally acceptable standards. Any Speaker, by convention, is an arbiter of parliamentary rules and procedures and must be a disinterested party to any debate that is tabled in parliament. He or she must be bi-partisan and refrain from wading in to the merits or the demerits of issues brought before his court. The whole notion of a speaker, in practice, is to adjudicate the competing interests of the government and the opposition within a congressional or parliamentary setting; setting procedural rules of the house, framing etiquette guidelines for debate, fixing timelines for questions and speeches, etc. A speaker, while necessarily part of the government, must be way out of the fray of government as well as opposition politics because he/she is looked upon to bring sanity to the very institution of politics. He/She must not take part in any debate in the parliament and should only concentrate on the efficacy of the debate of the parliament, and the adherence of the parliamentarians to the rules, regulations and procedures of the parliament. But unfortunately, on March 17, the Speaker, Shariff Aden behaved in a manner that brought disrepute to the institution of the parliament by allying himself with a faction within the parliament and by injecting his own opinion in to a debate that he could not legally take part in. What legal ground did he have to change the wordings of the government's motion and table this modified motion at whim: “ Whether to invite IGAD Front Line States for peace enhancing and protection purposes, or not”. The speaker needs to do some learning. Before the wordings of the government's motion could be changed or amended, a member of parliament, presumably opposing the wording of the motion ( Not the Speaker ) , should have called for an amendment of the government's motion. The speaker, being an arbiter and a disinterested party, should have registered this member's amendment and then tabled the amended motion for vote. If and when that amended motion passed in a clear majority, then he should have tabled it, it being the government's motion that was amended by a vote. Because it appears that the Speaker has side stepped the procedural rules of acceptable parliamentary standards on the face of the record, the motion he claims to have been passed is of questionable legality and must be treated as such. However, the government should not waste time on it because, this issue would only distract it from its other pressing agendas. That is not, however to say, that it should forget this damning incident. It should put pressure on the Speaker and impress upon him what his roles are and what his limitations are. He should be impressed on the fact that if he wants to inject his opinions and make deals with some factions in parliament, that he should abdicate from his position of Parliamentary speaker and join the ranks of the opposition. It is clear that he does not get it and must be impressed on what his role is .. In the meantime, the Prime Minister and the President should treat the incident of the brawl in the parliament as a victory and not as a defeat. After all, all the intransigent elements have now signed on to the notion that we should bring in African peacekeeping forces, something that they were adamantly opposed to for the past 14 years. But they should also make sure that Emperor Shariif is fully clothed from now on!
Abdirahman Hosh E-mail:abdihosh1@yahoo.ca
Copyright © 2005 Wardheernews.com |
