Parliament could cause stalemate

By Kabuzi Kabengo

THE state comprises three major organs, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Each of the three has its specific roles. 

Their work and relations are governed by the doctrine of separation of powers, and the principle of checks and balances. Each of the three organs is hence meant to discharge its mandate free of interference or undue influence from the others, and within the confines of the law.

But one would ask how can the state function effectively as an entity if its three constituents must operate at arm’s length and independent of one another? 

In practical politics, such distinct separation and strict independence does not exist. It only exists in textbooks. While the three operate independently, their roles are highly complementary and, in practice, they must of necessity work closely for the smooth running of public affairs.

As each of the three plays its roles, its key outputs constitute the key inputs of the other. For example, Parliament makes laws and approves government expenditure. It receives inputs from the executive by the way of bills and budget estimates for approval.

To that extent, the law making and financial appropriation functions become joint ventures between the Executive and Parliament. 

If the Executive does not draft Bills and prepare budget estimates, Parliament will have nothing to enact into law and nothing to appropriate as budgets. If 

Parliament does not approve the Bills and draft estimates prepared by the executive, the country will not have legally enforceable laws and no budgets in the 

legal sense. But after Parliament has appropriated budgets, it does not execute the activities, programmes and projects budgeted for, the Executive does. 

The relevant agencies of the Executive also collect revenue and avail resources to facilitate the work of other state organs. No state organ would be able to operate without such resources. And whenever the laws enacted by Parliament are contravened, neither the Executive nor Parliament can adjudicate and dispense justice. In criminal cases, it is agencies of the Executive which do the detection, investigation, prosecution and administration of court decisions.

The Government is a network of the three organs and their interlinked activities. None of the three is necessarily superior to or more important than the others. 

This kind of cooperation and respect between the three organs is increasingly fading, and more so between the Executive and Parliament.  It is evident that the ninth Parliament would like to be preponderant over and above the other organs of government, and particularly over the Executive.

It seems like MPs want every word of theirs to be law. They want every allegation to be enforced even before it has been investigated and proved right. 

To the MPs nobody should question any of their decisions, irrespective of the fact that not all their resolutions bind the Executive. 

This conceited stance of false supremacy is at variance with the principle of checks and balances which assigns all the three organs the power to restrain each other by lawful means and ensure that none of them acts in excess of the authority conferred upon it by law.  If it is not reversed soon, this trend may yield very unpleasant results. 

It may lead to the tyranny of Parliament upon the Executive, cause persistent conflict and eventually paralyse government business. The earlier this arrogance is curbed, the better for this country.

 The writer is an environmentalist and the article was co-authored by Joseph Bizimana