It still remains a mystery why it is taking so long for Members of Parliament to change the current procedure of holding the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee meetings in private.
Common sense dictates that such meetings should be held in public, not only as a way of enhancing transparency but also bearing mind the power dynamics in Botswana where the people who are supposed to be interrogated at those meetings happen to be excessively more powerful and more informed on policy matters.
As things stand it is not yet clear who is being protected from the scrutiny of the public by holding PAC meeting in camera.
While it is generally believed that holding such hearings in private guarantees senior civil servants the protection against potential embarrassment that comes with fielding probing questions from MPs, the reluctance by our MPs to lift the veil of secrecy may also lead some people to suspect that our estimable MPs also benefit because their economic and financial ignorance is also at the same time kept away from the public scrutiny.
In other words, evil as it may be, especially given that it denies the public access to unvarnished information with regard to how public finances are expended – holding the hearings in private may actually be serving to unite two sides that should, at least on a natural balance of scales be on opposing sides.
It may well be that this particular Parliamentary Standing Order benefits both sides.
Otherwise why the delay and reluctance in changing a law when as we all know the power to change it is well within the power and reach of the House, when we also want to believe that changing such a law is in the interest of the House as they always want us to believe?
MPs like to pretend they speak on behalf of the voter. It therefore makes sense that the voter should be free, if they so wish to come and listen to these very important proceedings that have a bearing on money appropriated by MPs would have been spent.
Members of Parliament, especially those that sit on this all important committee should as much as possible make themselves conversant with the processes and procedures of public finance.
While we note with delight that in general there has been an improvement with regard to the quality and calibre of MPs ÔÇô a trait that has culminated in enhanced quality of questions that Members ask the accounting officers who for most of the time are experienced technocrats ÔÇô Permanent Secretaries especially – it remains true that we have a long way to go before our MPs are anywhere near to even being a match for the highly skilled civil service.
The Civil Service in Botswana remains a very powerful institution. Because it is a repository of so much talent and experience, the civil service in Botswana has often served to undermine the implementation of key Government projects and policies.
It is not a secret that many of our senior civil servants have traditionally held MPs in contempt.
The power of the Civil service becomes is even more dangerous when it has the backing of a cabinet that wants to muzzle the back-bench.
To cut that power to size, Parliament must turn to the public for support and goodwill to expose the excesses and transgressions of both the cabinet and senior public servants.
And what better way to open up than allow the Public Accounts Committee to the public on whose behalf MPs ÔÇô we want to believe ÔÇô are doing everything!
