HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 224576,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/224576/?format=api",
"text_counter": 187,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Muite",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 235,
"legal_name": "Paul Kibugi Muite",
"slug": "paul-muite"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the Departmental Committee on the Administration of Justice and Legal Affairs has done some work on this Bill and we made a report, I shall be very brief. Ours now is to listen to the contributions from Members so that, during the Committee Stage, we can take on board the suggestions and wishes of hon. Members. The Committee is a servant of this House. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs for taking the initiative to bring this Bill to this House. That is a major milestone. The fact that, for the first time, in the history of this country, we shall be funding political parties from the Consolidated Fund, is a milestone in developing parliamentary multi- party democracy. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the amendments we have proposed at this stage are intended to enhance the objective that the Bill seeks to achieve. They are not to undermine it but rather, to enhance the attainment of those objectives. We will see that we are, for example - this is a point that the hon. Member for Kiharu was raising - suggesting that instead of every dispute going to the Judiciary, disputes between parties or even within a party, sometimes require a more informal setting to resolve than the Judiciary. We want to safeguard also the Judiciary in terms of over-politicising it. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, so, we provided for a tribunal which is going to be chaired by a person appointed by the Chief Justice and who is qualified to be appointed a judge of the High Court. It is a tribunal that can resolve the dispute between even coalition parties or within a party. It is a tribunal to which one will be able to appeal against the decision of the Registrar. We think that the adoption of this will enhance the objective of this Bill. 948 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES April 25, 2007 One of the other things that are not in this Bill and we require to have it in mind, is that the funding of political parties is such an important issue that, if you remember, we are recommending it in the minimum reforms. That, the principle of funding should be anchored in the Constitution. So, we hope that when we come to the enactment of the minimum reforms, we will give constitutional anchorage to this Political Parties Bill by stating in the Constitution that there would be a fund for political parties which will be administered in such manner as may be prescribed by an Act of Parliament. This will ensure that it is anchored in the Constitution and that tomorrow, there is no question of, for example, deleting this Statute, amending it or diluting that principle of funding of political parties. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, obviously, we have got to draw a balance. Now that we are funding political parties, one does not want to see a situation where each and every individual will go to form a political party, the so-called briefcase political parties. However, I think that point is catered for because of the manner of the distribution of funds. The distribution of the bulk of the funds from these Political Parties Fund is going to be proportional to the total number of votes cast for a particular party in the previous General Election. This will ensure that very many political parties, unless they are serious parties, can actually get the threshold for funding; will not qualify for funding. I think that is one provision so that on the one hand, you are not violating the Constitution by preventing people from forming political parties because that is their freedom of association. What we are doing is that by saying that unless a political party garners a certain percentage of votes in a General Election, that party will not qualify for the bulk of the funding from the political fund. I think that strikes a good balance! Even in the countries where there are only two or three dominant parties, it is not by legislation because the freedom of association is so fundamental. You cannot prohibit people from forming parties. It is evolution! Even in the USA, it is not constitutional; in the UK, it is also not constitutional. There are several examples because evolution in other countries is not towards two or three dominant parties. The evolution in many countries, including Germany and Italy, they are permanently in coalitions. You cannot force people that they must belong to a particular party. It is not a matter for legislation. It is not a matter for Constitution! It is a matter that you leave to political evolution. Until such time that the parties actually have the culture of democracy, internal party democracy, parties that are founded on ideology and not parties which are vehicles for attaining political powers: Parties that can be identified - have an identity - on the basis of their ideological inclination. Until we reach that point, you will have this proliferation of parties. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, looking at the recent experience of this country, one can safely predict that for a long time, this country is going to have coalition governments. That is why, in fact, we want to enact these essential reforms so that we regulate coalitions. If a party producing the wining presidential candidate does not also garner a majority of seats in this Parliament, that party will be constitutionally obligated to enter into a structured coalition with another party or parties. This business of poaching will come to an end. If one accepts an appointment as a Minister or Assistant Minister without his or her party being a coalition partner as a party, that individual will, by operation of law, lose his or her seat and go back for a by-election. This will ensure that parties and coalitions are going to be structured. It will act as a balancing check because if the Government of the day, that does not enjoy a majority, has coalition partners wishes to pilot through proposals or policies in this House, that party will be obligated to go and negotiate with its coalition partner(s). So, this Political Parties Bill, again, has got to be contextualized. We need to re-arrange the constitutional order so that we provide for constitutional coalitions, which is a good thing. In making the proposals we are making here, we are anticipating that this country is certainly going to April 25, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 949 see coalition governments for quite some time to come. This is why we are requiring where parties actually elect to go into a structured coalition, they will be required to deposit the instruments of coalition. This will ensure that even Mr. Speaker will know that this and that party is a grouping within a structured coalition and be treated as such in the management of Parliamentary business. This is something that also ought to be catered for in the Standing Orders (SO). I hope that when the SO are re-written, that accommodation, acceptance and legitimacy will be found. Therefore, I would like to end by urging hon. Members to approach this in a positive manner. We are correcting a major historical injustice!"
}