Be careful on secret ballot
A controversial motion to remove the secret ballot in Parliament has been moved by the MP Nyombi Thembo.
A controversial motion to remove the secret ballot in Parliament has been moved by the MP Nyombi Thembo.
The rules of procedure of Parliament require that voting on any contentious matter take place by secret ballot. The rules of procedure clearly state that a secret ballot is necessary to amend the constitution, or in other sensitive matters such as ministerial censure. However the Constitution itself does not demand that any amendment be made by secret ballot.
This motion to change the Parliamentary rules and adopt open voting comes at a time when it is about to debate the so-called Omnibus Bill of constitutional amendments including the proposal to lift presidential term limits.
The main argument in favour of open voting is that it increases accountability to the electorate. In both the British Parliament and American Congress, members’ voting history is a matter of public record. The electorate therefore know how their representatives voted on key issues. Indeed in the recent American presidential election, John Kerry’s ambiguous voting record on Iraq became a serious personal handicap.
The argument in favour of secret ballot is that MPs are more likely to vote honestly, and without fear or favour, if they know that government is not watching them.
There is a tightrope to walk between accountability and free voting. This issue will need to be thoroughly debated by Parliament before a decision is taken.
However changing this rule must itself be subject to a secret ballot. An open division or show of hands should not scrap it since it is by definition a contentious proposal.
Otherwise there is a risk that any subsequent legislation changed by open voting could be challenged in court and declared invalid. This could cause a constitutional crisis.
However if the secret ballot rule is lifted through a secret vote in the House, there should be no subsequent legal problem.
Ends
The rules of procedure of Parliament require that voting on any contentious matter take place by secret ballot. The rules of procedure clearly state that a secret ballot is necessary to amend the constitution, or in other sensitive matters such as ministerial censure. However the Constitution itself does not demand that any amendment be made by secret ballot.
This motion to change the Parliamentary rules and adopt open voting comes at a time when it is about to debate the so-called Omnibus Bill of constitutional amendments including the proposal to lift presidential term limits.
The main argument in favour of open voting is that it increases accountability to the electorate. In both the British Parliament and American Congress, members’ voting history is a matter of public record. The electorate therefore know how their representatives voted on key issues. Indeed in the recent American presidential election, John Kerry’s ambiguous voting record on Iraq became a serious personal handicap.
The argument in favour of secret ballot is that MPs are more likely to vote honestly, and without fear or favour, if they know that government is not watching them.
There is a tightrope to walk between accountability and free voting. This issue will need to be thoroughly debated by Parliament before a decision is taken.
However changing this rule must itself be subject to a secret ballot. An open division or show of hands should not scrap it since it is by definition a contentious proposal.
Otherwise there is a risk that any subsequent legislation changed by open voting could be challenged in court and declared invalid. This could cause a constitutional crisis.
However if the secret ballot rule is lifted through a secret vote in the House, there should be no subsequent legal problem.
Ends