CA: Why the Opposition must fine tune its rules of debate

By Editor

Editorial Cartoon

Appeals are being directed at various groups of the Constituent Assembly which have reason to be unhappy with the way things are going, including the composition of the assembly itself and its constituent committees, to take greater care in how opposition is expressed.


The caution was expressed on Friday morning when CA members met in plenary to approve alterations to the Standing Orders, the regulations upon which the work of the Assembly is conducted, by Muhambwe MP Felix Mkosamali as a member of the assembly.
He was reacting to positions by some key leaders from the opposition Chama Cha Maendeleo na Demokrasia (Chadema) in the CA.

The session was convened to approve altered regulations which top Chadema officials Tundu Lissu and John Mnyika had put to question, aside from an appeal by the latter concerning the composition of the coordinating committee, both objections failing to obtain approval of the plenary session.

Certain reports said the appeal was disqualified by the chairman of the regulations committee, whereas his report came up only after debate, where only two speakers – the Chadema officials  raised objections but seven other speakers supported alterations, including Mkosamali. It was just adequate.

Apart from the specific character of objections to altered regulations, which arise from difficulties of conducting committee work when issues of voting come up owing to abstention of many CA members  apparently to make life difficult for the CCM-dominated committee leaderships  little else could be heard from the critics.

Aware that such tactics lead to nowhere because they do not change the voting balance but lead to unnecessary consultations on what to do, postponements of voting and such disturbances, changes were made to make two thirds of present members voting. Some insist on having to differ.

As things stand now, even these ‘rump two thirds’ rules may not suffice current needs, as it is unlikely that a two thirds majority vote is available on anything but the general issues of human rights etc, not the key chapter one and chapter 6 relating to the country and the structure of government.

Much of what was being disputed before has been cleared, or is in the process of being grasped, for instance following the cutting edge debate between two gurus, former Constitutional Review Commission chairman Joseph Warioba and constitutional law professor Issa Shivji. They took different sides and showed their merits.

Owing to the fact that the CA convened on the background of an approved proposal for an altered structure of government but which CCM had already signaled it did not support, many expected that it would be a matter of persuading most CCM delegates (MPs in particular) to put aside their party’s formal position and embrace what looked like a civic majority.

That has proved difficult, because CCM insists that the draft constitution willfully ignores the danger of a break-up of the country, and to be sure, some its supporters are not shocked by that prospect.

They are, if anything, indifferent to salvaging the union.
That is why a lot of care needs to be taken by the opposition in particular as they will find themselves on the receiving end in many issues likely to arise, either in the use of regulations or in substantive issues of clauses of the draft.

If they wish to achieve anything and not  some premeditated walkout ceremonies, it is necessary to adapt to circumstances of debate, that preserving the union has been made primary, and the government is not swallowing assurances that all will be well.
They should try to stick to that facet.