Federal budget 2010-11: only one-third of National Assembly members took part in debate

One-third of the members of the National Assembly took part in the debate on the federal budget 2010-11 while many of them focused on political issues, including general comments on terrorism and power shortage for point scoring. This was revealed in a report entitled "Fafen Parliament Monitor" launched in press conference by Free and Fair Election Network (Fafen) in collaboration with Centre for Peace and Development Initiative (CPDI), a member organisation of Fafen here on Tuesday.
The report is based on direct observation of 23rd (Budget) Session of the National Assembly. The report contains analysis drawn by Fafen secretariat on the basis of direct observation of the National Assembly Proceedings by CPDI.
According to the report only about one-third of the Members of the National Assembly (114 out of 340) took part in discussion and debate on the federal budget during the 23rd Session of the National Assembly held between June 3 and 30, 2010. Many MNAs who did take part in the budget debate focused on extraneous political and other issues, including general comments on terrorism and power shortage.
Report further says that MNAs also introduced 660 "cut motions" aimed at decreasing 41 of the government's 183 proposed budgetary allocations, or "demands for grants," Not one of these cut motions was successful, raising the question whether the process for debate on the budget is an effective use of time or a useful method for building true political consensus on the federal budget.
According to Fafen Monitor, the business of Parliament also could only be meaningful "with the active and responsible participation of its Members." Indicators of effective participation include, for example, attendance and active involvement of parliamentary leadership and other members in parliamentary discussion and activities. However, while 33 out of 76 female parliamentarians (44 percent) spoke on the budgetary proposals, less than one-third (30.6 percent) of male parliamentarians took part in the general debate on budget (81 out of 264).
The absence of parliamentary leaders from the National Assembly during the budget process was particularly notable, based on Fafen's unique direct observation of parliamentary proceedings. The leader of the opposition was present during about two-thirds of the budget session (14 of 21 sittings, or 66.7 percent), while the Parliamentary Leader of PML attended less than half of the session (9 sittings, or 42.9 percent). The MQM parliamentary leader was present during less than one-third of the session (6 sittings, or 28.6 percent), and the attendance rate of the ANP parliamentary leader was less than one-quarter (3 sittings, or 14.3 percent).
In addition to the Finance Bill, 2010, two bills out of 16 bills on the regular agenda were passed by the National Assembly during the 23rd Session, namely the Benazir Income Support Programme Bill (BISP), 2010 and the Islamabad High Court Bill 2010. None of the legislation proposed by opposition members, so-called "private members bills," were debated or passed.
Addressing on this occasion Mukhtar Ahmad Ali Executive Council Member Fafen said that Fafen Parliament Watch Project (PWP) was designed to measure the performance of the legislature and of elected representatives in the National Assembly through a comprehensive direct observation methodology to foster more informed dialogue between citizens and elected representatives.
"Fafen's standardised checklists for monitoring parliamentary functions are based on the parliament's rules of procedures and conduct of business and include details related to parliamentary transparency, participation, representation and responsiveness, output, order and institutionalisation," Mukhtar maintained.
He further said that in the democratic countries it is the basic right of every citizen to reach correct information. To strengthen democratic values it is necessary to provide correct information about the performance and interest of the elected members in the parliament to their voters.
On this occasion a list of recommendations was tabled according to which proceeding should be open and civil societies should be given formal permission to observe the proceeding. A report based on the parliamentarians business should be put on website on the same day of proceeding. Similarly, transcript of the debate and record of actual time should be available on website.