Opposition parties are complaining that the regular sessions of the House of Peoples’ Representatives are not being conducted appropriately. Opposition parties are expressing reservations about the House and its performance. Speaker of the House of Peoples Representatives Ambassador Teshome Toga tells The Reporter his side of the story concerning the complaints being voiced and the general procedures and performance of the House. Excerpts:

Some members of Parliament are complaining that sessions are not being conducted properly. How would you explain the workings of the Parliament?

There is the general assembly, the standing and ad hoc committees and the Parliament Administration and through these the House performs its tasks.
These bodies prepare the work program of the House during the working days of the week or during the twice-weekly meetings of the general assembly on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

According to the regulations provided, when there are agendas that need to be presented to the House, that is done and the House holds meetings to deliberate and debate on them and decisions are then taken.

So the complaint that regular sessions are not being conducted appropriately is unfounded. That is not in accord with reality.

It is only when such sessions are not held according to regulations, and when agendas that needed to be decided on have not been finalized, that such accusations would have been acceptable.

We have no pending agendas that were presented by Members of Parliament that have not been dealt with during the official working days of the House.
Therefore I would like to stress again that the complaints are unfounded.

Besides, there is no law or regulation that says that the House should meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays, regardless of whether there are agendas to be discussed or not.

Secondly, the performance of the House can not be evaluated solely on the basis of the general assembly meetings, if that is the only parameter that people take into consideration, then that is a big mistake.

A significant portion of the work is first handled by committees and then the committees bring before the House issues that the latter needs to decide on.

In order for 547 MPs to sit and discuss an agenda you need to first do the necessary preparations and also be able to come with the appropriate proposals for decision.

In addition to this, MPs also carry out numerous tasks on behalf of Parliament.

There are those with the view that the work performed by committees should not just be viewed as the task of committees…

That is a mistaken view. The tasks carried out by the committees are preparation works for the general assembly. All parties are represented in the committees. All members of Parliament are involved in the workings of the committees. Therefore, although Parliament is not holding regular sessions, it is indirectly involved in the work carried out by the committees.

If there are MPs who have failed to use the democratic right that has been guaranteed to all members, and who interpret the performance of the House in terms of just the regular sessions, then these are just people who have not clearly understood the procedures of  Parliament.

It is also good to clarify here what matters the House deals with during its regular sessions.

As a legislative body parliament has two basic responsibilities. One of these is to pass laws.

Each country has its own procedures of passing laws.

In our case, drafts are first read in Parliament and members of standing committees are given the opportunity to evaluate the drafts in detail, discuss them and forward their remarks before the standing committees take over. This is usually not the case in many countries as drafts are directly sent to the standing committees who are expected to provide proposals for decision by Parliament.

Once the draft is submitted to the standing committees, we also have a provision that allows for further discussions between MPs and the public at large. Members of Parliament and political parties have the right to bring such drafts before the public and assess popular opinion.

Issues related to the passing of laws are first brought the assembly and then are submitted to the standing committees.

The second task of Parliament is to regulate and evaluate the performance of the executive body.

This process could be described in three ways.

One, the Prime Minister is expected bring before Parliament three times a year, a performance report of his government. Ministers are also expected to report before the general assembly.

The Prime Minster and his ministers also respond to respond in parliament to inquiries coming from the public at large. During such sessions members of Parliament have the right to participate in the discussions.

Most of the detail work related to monitoring and evaluation, however, is primarily the task of the standing committees. It is just impossible to bring before Parliament all the annual performances of all the institutions.

Some MPs also say that there is shortage of agendas from the government brought before Parliament. Despite the significant number of problems in the country, these MPs claim, the government has failed to bring agendas that deal with those problems. In addition, the members also claim that their proposals  in that regard are rejected.

Let me respond to this from two angles.

If this view emanates from the opinion that because the Tuesday and Thursday sessions are not always held, then it could be deducted that it is because there is a shortage of proposals then it is a mistake.

I have already explained how Parliament entertains agendas during its regular sessions.

There are no proposals that are pending, whether they were brought by the government or opposition parties. Regular sessions are being conducted properly.

It is therefore necessary to clearly understand whether there actually exists shortage of proposals, or that other relevant bodies are handling these.

It is usually the government that prepares draft laws and brings these before Parliament. And such draft proposals have appropriately been handled by Parliament.

As was indicated by our President during the opening of this year’s Parliament, the amended regulation says that a plan of action will be presented regarding all matters that the government is expected to prepare draft laws for or other legal matters it will bring before the Parliament. There is, however, no program that says ‘this and this will be brought on this hour and on this minute.’

We receive from the Council of Ministers plans of action that could be indicative of how we should prepare our programs, but these plans of action could fail to be precise due to a number of reasons.

Regarding draft laws, it is only at the end of the year that it can be established whether the plans of action indicated by the President have properly been carried out or not.

In the past three years we have looked at and passed an average of 33 to 34 laws and decisions.

Our plan and expectation this year is that we will look at some 34 laws.
Therefore, it is only at the end of this year that it is possible to determine whether we have successfully looked at the plans of actions provided by the government.

There is some discrepancy in the time table that we received from the Cabinet. We are looking into why that has happened, and have some idea of why it has happened.

Let me cite some examples. We have recently seen the law enacted regarding the registration of political parties.

This was a law that was negotiated between parties and then brought before the House.

Laws drafted by the government are usually seen by those who are stakeholders.

What is the implication of a law on policy? What is its implication on government and finance and so on…? These are some of the issues that are studied before a draft is brought before Parliament.

It is beneficial that the draft is evaluated by skilled experts who assess its interrelation with other laws and with the Constitution.

It is natural, therefore, that because it has to pass such rigorous process we may not be able to meet the proposed plans of action.

One such draft is the draft press law which we have been looking at last year and this year. It is a law that needs careful evaluation because there are a lot of stakeholders, including the public at large.

There is also the issue related to election 2005. Outside the working procedures of the House, parties had to negotiate on certain national issues before the House deliberated on them. That has taken time and caused delay in the process.

Matters of immediate nature that are coming from the public are also dealt with in the House. Parliament deliberates on such issues when they are brought as inquiries or motions.

It is not only the government that has the responsibility to raise such proposals, it is also opposition parties.

All MPs, especially those represented at party level, should ask themselves what they have done in this regard.

In principle opposition parties have the right to make such proposals; they, as any representative, have the right to present agendas.

I feel it is better to treat the question of shortage of proposals in light of what I have already explained.

Our procedure is clear about who can raise a proposal in the House, it is therefore not correct to say that the proposals of the opposition are always rejected.

How are agendas forwarded to the general assembly?

The House Affairs committee decides that the proposed agenda should be passed to the House once it establishes that all members have agreed to it.

Each party is represented in the House Affairs Committee. Depending on the number of parties, the number of representatives could also be more than one person.

With regard to time allocation, we go into the House to implement that time allocation agreed to by the members of the committees.

If there is no agreement, the committee can not decide on the agenda and the time allocation by a majority vote.

EPRDF is the ruling party and has therefore more representation in these committees, but the House Affairs Committee can not vote on what agenda to bring to the House or on time allocation.

In the case that members of the committee are unable to come to an agreement, then the issue is forwarded to the House.

However, there has not been an incident where members of the committee had failed to come to an agreement on what agenda to forward to the House and the time allocation.

It is, therefore, an unfounded accusation to say that the agendas proposed by opposition parties are rejected.

Regarding time allocation, for example, I am the person who proposes the amount of time that needs to be allocated.

Opposition parties may feel that they need to discuss the issue in detail and therefore may ask that more time be allocated to its discussion. So we may decide that an hour is appropriate. After we have come to an agreement then we begin to apportion that hour based on the number of seats that each party has in Parliament.

Those who raise a lot of questions are those whose time allotment is small.
I attend a lot of meetings representing Parliament. I attended the joint conference of the Caribbean, Pacific and European countries and about a year ago there was a decision that needed to be passed and there was a debate. I was just given three minutes and had to answer all the questions within that period of time.

Each representative should be able to prepare and be able to choose what points reflect best the position of the party.

No one sits at a meeting and goes on forever believing they have time.
If there actually is a time shortage in Parliament, our procedure is still open to amendments.

Some MPs begin to speak of how there is no light in their neighborhood when the issue being discussed is about a certain amount of loan. Some demand to speak of Federal matters when the issues at hand are about regional issues. And others demand to speak about Addis Ababa in particular when the House is actually discussing urban development.

If one does not put a limit to such trends then Parliament will definitely turn out to be chaotic.

I am responsible for seeing to it that the decisions of the House and the committees are implemented.

Opposition parties can within the agreed upon time and regulations express their views, and I can not restrict that.

But when they fail to respect the rules it is also my responsibility to enforce the rules of the House.

It takes the collaboration of everyone involved to build a strong democratic institution.