Question Time in Botswana National Assembly RANWEDZI NENGWEKHULU Introduction The aim of this analysis is to attempt an assessment of Question Time in the Botswana National Assembly since independence. The assessment will therefore focus on the historical evolution and development of Question Time in Botswana its nature and character, its function and role in the National Assembly, the statutory environment within which i t operates etc. But in order to place Question Time in Botswana National Assembly, it will be necessary to provide a brief historical background of the evolutlon and development of Question Time in Britain where the idea of Question Time first developed, and against which Quest ion Time in Botswana could be properly situated. Thus the first phase of this assessment will deal with a general analysis of the origins, development, character and role of Question Time in Britain. Many people have contnbuted to the coming into fruition of this study b u tIt" want to express my specia gra ltu d e t0 the Faculty of Social Science, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia for providing computer services free of charge. would also like to mention that this was P 0 Ih emuS, Dean of the School a JOInt study conducted by Dr. James The present paper of SOCIa I Sciences, Deakin University and myself. Hence responsibil1ty IS, however, the product of my own conception. for any omisslOn, and ideas expressed is mine alone. 105 General Analysis A short history of Question Time in Britain According to Fred Willye, "Question Time is of comparatively recent origin. The first Question asked in Parliament was asked by Lord Cowper in the House of Lords in 1721 ••...•.. ,,1 But it would appear that this practice was not introduced in the House of Commons until after the Reform Act of 1832. Thus in the House of Commons the first question was asked in 1835 when the member for Bolton asked the Prime Minister Sir Robert Pee 1 whether the 2 created boroughs would have corporations. Generally speaking the practice of asking questions did not become a widespread and recognized it until well into the second half of the 19th century when it was accepted as an integral and necessary part of the Parlia- mentary business. Initially, the practice was restricted to asking questions concerning the business of the House or the intentions of Government in respect of legislation, although by the time of the Reformed Parliament the right of members to ask questions was already well established and recognized. But even then the asking of questions was not recognized as a procedure in its own right but rather it was seen as an exception to the general rules of parlia- mentary debate. Members could therefore not address the House except to debate a motion. But this state of affairs could not persist for a long time. Thus towards the close of the 19th century, the asking of questions was fast becoming a parliamentary procedure in its own right. The remainder of the century saw th b .. of h b e eglOnlng the process were y the rules of procedure governing the form and content of questions were worked out and their place in the parliamentary proceedings was defined. This process opened the floodgates as the use of questions became widespread and their number grew rapidly. This rapid growth of 106 questions was accompanied by the birth of subsidiary or supplementary questions. But the rapid growth of questions brought in its train problems for the other business of the House, for they began to take much of the time that was available in the house to the detriment of other business of the House, especially since the growth of questlons was not accompanied by the extension of time and also because questions always preceded the commencement of the business of the day. This culminated in a number of reforms designed to streamlIne and improve the asking of questions. The problems which arose as a result of the growth of questions led to the introduction of the Rota System. 3 This then is the short history of the evolution and development of the Question Time as a parliamentary procedure in its own right. The Role and Function Question and Question Time Perhaps the most important feature of questions and Question Time which characterized the evolution and development of thiS parliamentary procedural mechanism is not the pangs and problems encountered but rather the role that it began to perform. In the first place, "they are very Important elements in the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility and second, they are one of the last procedural devices at the complete disposal of the back-bencher". 4 The asking of questions b y back-benchers enables a minister "on whom parliament has conserved t a particu I ar power 0 be asked by he has exercising it or exercised it In such and such a way, how he 15 5 whether he will exercise it in a particular case or manner". a weapon completely The second function oj questions is that it IS in an era in which at the disposal of the back-benchers especially 107 party whips have become the only mechanisms through which back- benchers can participate in the proceedings of the House. Questions, therefore remain exceptions to this development for they are not controlled by the whips nor are they front bench device which depended on the whims and caprices of front benchers. Question Time in Botswana National Assembly The history and Evolution of Question Time in Botswana The history of questions and question Time in Botswana can be traced only as far back as the 1966 Standing Orders of the National Assembly of Botswana adopted by the National Assembly on the 5th October, 1966 and including amendments subsequently made. In fact, the history and notion of questions and question Time are intimately interwoven with the history of the whole system of political organisa- tion which in turn is a product of the Westminister- system of political or-ganization. Thus the notion of questions and question Time was inherited together with the Westminister system adopted in Botswana at the inception of independence. Procedures and Rules Governing questions and Question Time According to the standing order-s, "Any pr-ivate Member may address a question to a Minister relating to a public matter for which he is responsib Ie, and either seeking information on such matter, or asking for official it :1 6 action with regard to Although every member has a right to ask a question he can, however, only ask such a question if and when notice of such a question has been give. There is, however, an exception to this rule and, that is, "If a Member asks the permission of the Speaker to ask a question for oral answer without notice on the ground that it is of an urgent character and relates to a member of public importance or to the arrangement of business, 108 the speaker may permit the question to be asked without notice if he is satisfied that it is of that nature, and that sufficient private notice of the question has been or IS to be gIven by the Member to the Minister concerned to enable the question to be answered", 7 ThIS IS the only exception, otherwise notice must be given to all questions to be answered. All notices, with the exception of the above mentioned exception, must be handed by the Member to the Clerk of the National Assembly. When the Assembly IS sitting or left at or sent to his offif=e at least three days in advance. This is to enable the Minister responsible sufflcient to prepare an answer. If a Member wants an oral answer to his question, he must indicate to that affect by an asterisk. This enables the question to be put down for a day to be appointed by the Member and thIs must not be a day earlier than three days after the notice has been recorded In the Order Book. An unmarked question may be put down for the next sItting day of the Assembly and the answer given is Clrculated With the minutes of the proceedings. All questlOns to be put, whether for oral written answer are numbered serially In each seSSlOn and the number gIven to each questIon is shown against on the order paper. The is to avoId unnecessary repetItions of questIons. This also helps to save time for the Member only calls the number of the question for answer to hIs question. They shall also not be directed to debates or answer in the current session, or proceddings in a committee before that committee has made a report to the Assembly. Finally questlOns shall not refer to hearsay, statements in the press Or radio or hypotical or abstract Issues. The Utilization of Questions and Question Time Since Independence 1966-80 The main focus here will be an attempt to assess the utilization of Q uestions and questlOn . T ime no t only by MPs but also by parties. 109 In order words the assessment will involve the classification of the utilization of Questions and question Time according to MPs political parties, Questions dealing with an MP' s constituency, National issues, international issues and self-interest. Participation in question Time and the utilization of questions will therefore be discussed according to the above classifications. The idea is to determine clearly how frequently and widespread have questions and Question Time been used as a form of participation in decision making and law-making by MP' s in Botswana and for what purpose? Which party or individual MP uses Questions and question Time more frequently? What is the attitude of MPs and parties towards question Time and Questions? The Utilization of Questions and Question Time Since Independence by MPs From an analysis of the data at our disposal, i.e. regarding Questions and question Time between 1966 and 1980, it is clear that the use or utilization of Questions and question Time as a form of participation by MPs in law-making is not yet a widespread practice in Botswana. Thus for instance our data indicate that only 751 Questions were asked between 1966 and 1980, a) 134 (18%) of these were asked during the first parliament and 617 (82%) during the third parliament. SEE TABLE 1. Comparatively speaking, however, there has been a q uantita ti ve increase in the utilization of questions and question Time as the data indicate, i.e. from 134 during the first parliament to 617 during the 110 TABLE 1 AD] CUM AD] CUM AD] CUM Code Freq. % % Code Freq. % % Code Freq. % % 1 134 18 18 3 617 82 100 Valid Cases 751 Missins Cases 0 This shows that our sample includes 751 questions. 134 (]8%) from the first Parliament and 617 (82%) from the third. Since we do not have data on all questions asked during both parlia- ments, it does not mean much, then those in describing the sample. SOURCE HANSARD third parliament. But in general, however, as already mentioned. there is a limited use of questions especially since Question lIme I" a useful platform from which back-benchers. I.e. Mls are nol only able to maximally air their public grievances but are also able to cntlcize Government policies. This IS especially so for Opposition parties which because of their parliamentary weakness are unable to say block Government legislation whIch they do not agree WIth. Question Time therefore provides them with a platform from which they can assail Government policies espeCIally Since dIscussIOn on any piece of legislation before parliament IS normally severely restricted, I.e. the time allotted to each MP is restricted. For those who enjoy the glare of publICIty and attention of the public ear Question Time is the best platform. questIOn TIme should therefore be attractive and captlvatlng for OppoSItIOn ~Iembers than for the Government Members but In reality however thiS seems to be the direct opposite In Botswana as we shall see later. III One would have expected Government Members to be more reluctant than Opposition members to ask Questions for questions asked in parliament may sometimes prove disastrous for the Government for they may be directed to issues, such as national security, which the Government considers sensitive, which may place Government in an ackward position. One would also have expected greater utilization of Question time for it also allows a Member to reassure his constitu- ency that he is not only part of the parliamentary audience but also an active member of the political 'troupe' enacting the parliamentary show especially if he asks questions relating to his constituency. But surprinsingly enough, they are MPs from both sides of the house who have used question Time very sparignly instead of exhaustively as we shall show later. 1t therefore seems that Members do not seem to appreciate that Question Time is a forum where they, as elected representatives of the people, show their right to debate critically the actions of the Government for in reality Question Time and Questions are another forum of debate despite the contrary definition of Questions, for the orthdox view is that a questioner should not debate the issue or issues raised in the question but in practice, however, questions are another forum of a debate especially since the questioner can persist with his question in the forum of a supple- mentary question or by asking his fellow members to raise supple- mentary questions. If questions are another forum of a debate, argue as we tried to it is therefore surprising that in general questions and Question Time as another forum not only for debates but also for parliamentary participation by Members do not enjoy widespread use in Botswana. 51 Questions between 1966 and 1980 is indeed a very small number considering not only the value of Questions but also the fact that this covers three parliaments and an appreciable number of sessions per each parliament and sittings per each session. 10 On reason why the use of questions and Question Time is not wide- spread in Botswana might be that Members do not research issues and as such wait for information to be fed to them by the public. 112 The Individual member and Questions and Question Time in Botswana Parliament Our aim here is to assess the use of Questions and QuestlOn Time by each Individual member. In other words it is to assess the total number of questions and percentage of questions asked by each individual member and so as to determine the level of each member's II participation in question Time. Our date indicate clearly that some members rarely utilize questlOn Time as another and very important form of participation In the national decision-maki