Inna Koviao Hengari
Suppose you are an investor with N$61.5 billion to invest in a business. An entrepreneur appears before you with a business proposal and his 23 children, and explains the concept to you, as well as how he will personally drive the business agenda forward.
At the conclusion of his presentation, he says, “These 23 children will supervise various profit centres of the business. So, if you have any further questions, you should contact any of the 23 children.”
Then he walks away, leaving you and his children behind to investigate the viability of the business.
What will you feel as an investor? Disrespected! Unvalued! Not taken seriously! Will you give your hard-earned cash to someone who disregards you like that?
Is this not what the Head of State does with every budget debate?
In the strive to grow a young democracy like ours, there will exist debate about the role, and by extension, the practices or traditions of the legislative arm of government.
One of these old traditions is that of giving a State of the Nation Address (SONA), which is a universal practice.
Countries such as the Philippines, United Kingdom, Ghana and South Africa follow a similar practice.
In the United States, the practice dates back to more than 200 years.
Back then, the President sent a written report.
This practice is now carried out in parliamentary democracies with proportional representation, in which the policy chosen in one period becomes the status quo in the following.
In the State of the Nation Address, the President takes the nation into confidence on the government’s plans, and sets the tone on critical matters of the country.
For some countries, the SONA is preceded and followed by intense discussions in the media, academic and research institutions that seek to inform and shape public opinion as well as influence policy.
Recently, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa delivered the State of the Nation Address at the Cape Town City Hall.
In line with South Africa’s constitution, the President delivers his SONA before a joint sitting of the houses of Parliament; the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces.
The occasion brings together the legislature, the Executive and Judiciary as separate but interdependent arms.
Beyond the regalia and red-carpet showcase, the State of the Nation Address is an important constitutional exercise where the sitting Head of State should report to Parliament on the country’s progress and challenges.
In a lengthy address this year, the South African President spoke on reforms needed to transform the country’s ailing economy. For South Africans, the address is an opportunity to better take part in their democracy.
Through robust debate, Members of Parliament scrutinise the information presented, and the nation at large participates in open democratic dialogues with the aim to influence the outcome of the national budget.
It goes without saying that there should be a cyclical link between SONA, the budget allocation and Parliament’s oversight mandate.
The President delivers his SONA before Parliament because Parliament is charged with ensuring that the work flowing from this Address is implemented. Most importantly, SONA is delivered in Parliament because the priorities pronounced in it have budgetary implications demanding robust oversight – one of Parliament’s constitutional responsibilities.
The State of the Nation Address is also a key feature in the Namibian calendar. It ‘should’ be a rallying point and a valuable source for those who wish to take the pulse of democratic Namibia.
The tradition of giving a State of the Nation Address is rooted in the constitution; Chapter 5 Article 32 (2), which stipulates: ‘In accordance with the responsibility of the Executive branch of Government to the Legislative branch, the President and Cabinet shall each year during the consideration of the official budget attend Parliament. During such session, the President shall address Parliament on the state of the nation and on the future policies of the Government, shall report on the policies of the previous year, and shall be available to respond to questions.’
This article compels the President and Cabinet to be in Parliament during the consideration of the official budget. However, contrary to the supra, tradition has been that the President attends Parliament at 14h30, reads his speech, which often is characterised by political jargon, and a few members on the opposition bench are then rushed into putting censored questions to which the President answers at will. He can make a mockery of these questions or even as often done, dismiss them.
This status quo has remained unquestioned and unchanged for decades, but the young will zealously guard the constitution and ensure accountability.
Two fundamental challenges arise from the current way of doing things.
First, Members of Parliament and the general citizens do not have enough time to research the President’s SONA and prepare questions in respect of the address delivered. There is no ‘real’ engagement on the SONA, and therefore thin accountability relating to the government’s work to improve the state of the nation. Thirdly, the State of the Nation Address is turned into a ceremonial exercise by the Head of State, a ‘favour’ of some sort to the National Assembly, and not a platform for accountability as envisaged in Chapter 5 Article 32 (2). The dangers of such a system are obvious. Whereas the State of the Nation Address is an outline of current national priorities, the lack of involvement of Members of Parliament and civil society organisations robs the country of crucial information and expert opinion for development. The national budget, which is an expression of national priorities in monetary value, is drawn up in the absence of these differing views from the National Assembly. This is cause for concern.
The President’s answers in the SONA have never pointed towards accountability to the people through their National Assembly representatives. In fact, I can almost put my head on the block and vouch that the President takes questions from the Swapo structures more seriously than that of the other representatives in the National Assembly.
The Appropriation Bill is in essence a requisition of monetary resources by the head of state and his Cabinet to Parliament in fulfillment of their shared constitutional duties. In terms of Article 32 (2), the President and his Cabinet cannot be separated when it comes to the debate on the Appropriation Bill, hence the use of the word ‘and’ in the foregoing article.
Therefore, the Constitution requires of any President, who takes his job seriously and the citizens of this country, to be present during the budget debate.
In fact, all members of the House are vested with the responsibility to uphold in general the Namibian Constitution, and in particular Chapter 5 Article 32 (2). The Speaker of the National Assembly, as presiding officer, becomes the primary caretaker of this Constitutional provision.
There should, therefore, be no question on whether the President can or should return the next day or the following week to respond to questions from Members of the House.
These interactions are provided for by Parliamentary rules so that the integrity and sanctity of this esteemed institution is maintained. The power lies with the Speaker, whom at his discretion may invoke rules from the Standing Rules and Orders & Internal Arrangements to guide debate in the August House.
It is safe to say that the ‘business as usual’ approach is ineffective, especially as it pertains to the State of the Nation Address and the consideration of the official budget.
The Speaker must, therefore, exercise discretion where the Constitution and Standing Rules allow, for an effective Parliament. It simply cannot be business as usual!