MPs Shy Away From TV Cameras

By John KakandeMEMBERS of Parliament on April 30, 2002 voted against a recommendation by the Rules, Privileges and Discipline Committee to open up the parliamentary proceedings to television coverage.If the recommendation had been approved, viewers across the country would have been in position, for the first time to watch their Members of Parliament debating and voting on Bills and other motions, in the comfort of their homes.Now that the recommendation has been rejected, voters shall continue to rely only on newspapers and radio reports to know how well or badly their representatives in Parliament are performing. Ben Wacha’s (Oyam North) committee did not seek to bring about a ‘free-for-all’ state of affair. It did not seek to grant WBS or Uganda Televi-sion access to the parliamentary proceedings.The committee wanted television coverage to be restricted and reserved for a tightly controlled parliamentary press unit.Wacha made it clear that the TV cameras were not to focus on any ‘embarrassing’ aspect that could undermine the ‘dignity’ and credibility of the House. For instance, the cameras were not to show empty seats or a member snoozing during debate.True, worldwide televised parliamentary proceedings are not yet common. Probably our Parliament was going to set the precedent on the continent, if it was okayed for the proceedings to be televised.The committee had sought to revolutionarise parliamentary coverage by recommending to the Parliament to open up to television coverage.I salute Wacha and his committee for this bold decision. I also salute Lt. General Elly Tumwine; the only member who spoke strongly in favour of unfettered televised coverage. Tumwine’s argument that voters deserve to know what exactly takes place inside the chamber was spot on.According to a directory of televised legislatures compiled by the American group, C-SPAN, there are roughly 30 countries in Europe, Asia, North and South America, which have televised parliamentary proceedings.The countries are not only from the developed world or old democracies. There are some also from the emerging democracies. Some of these are; Chile, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Moldova, Indonesia and Estonia, besides Britain, United States, Germany, Australia and Spain.MPs are always lecturing to government and the state bureaucrats about accountability and transparency. They themselves have demonstrated that they are not ready to practice what they prea-ch. The MPs’ major worry was that the television cameras would expose their dirty linen to the public and thus “undermine the dignity of the House or its members.”Even the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Dr Okullo Epak (Oyam South), who routinely grills governme-nt officials over matters of accountability, was not ready to subject himself to live television exposure.The reasons advanced by the MPs against television coverage, were absurd. During debate on the matter, not a single member raised any valid reason against television coverage. One MP argued that Parliament would turn into a ‘theatre’.Another honourable member was worried that those who do not speak in the House or miss important debates would be exposed.Another MP noted that those who say silly things or cannot debate in good English would also be exposed. With the Hansard, they can get away with it because there are people who ensure that the embarrassing statements, which are made by members on the floor of the House, do not get into the official record the Hansard.MPs should move with the times. The 21st century is an information technology age. They should accept to open up parliamentary proceedings to TV coverage, radio and the Internet.It would enhance public access to the political process, particularly in Parliament. It would enhance transparency the MPs often lecture government officials about.In Switzerland parliamentary proceedings of both Chambers are broa-dcast live on the Internet. A person who has access to the Internet can listen to the debates in the Swiss Parliament. As Isingiro North MP Dr Johnson Nkuuhe Obse-rved, television coverage is good because it is likely to have led to improvement in attendance and quality of the the debates.Ends