Parliament, as the legislative arm, is the highest branch of government. Among the many responsibilities it has, it ratifies the laws of the land and oversees the work of the executive. As such, it is a venue where ideas and issues of paramount significance are debated.

For democracy to evolve, people need to see it at work, and debating the merits of different ideas is a big part of that. For Ethiopia’s Parliament, which is a collection of representatives from a diverse group of people, the need for free debate is even more vital. 

Sadly, there is hardly any lively debate.

Members of Parliament have a limited amount of time allotted to them to speak on any given agenda that is brought up. The time is determined by the number of seats the party they are a member of has in the house. There are many occasions where MPs are cut off because their allotted time was up.

Granted, it is unreasonable to say that each MP should be given an unlimited amount of time to speak his mind. It is even more difficult if Parliament is comprised of different parties, as has been the case in Ethiopia until now.

However, forcing an MP to cram whatever is on his mind into two minutes, especially for an elected official as experienced as Bulcha Demekssa (MP-OFDM) from the just disbanded Parliament, is outrageous. Parliament has witnessed many MPs like Bulcha being cut off without being allowed to even finish her train of thought.

As a result of this limitation in the exchange of ideas, this highest organ in the government is nothing but a collection of people who merely utter brief notions and not well composed arguments.

The only time Parliament draws attention from the public is when the Prime Minister shows up. This is not because they get to see MPs and the Prime Minister dishing out their ideas for each other, but to see the reaction of the premier to the few words uttered by MPs.

Whether the Prime Minister addresses questions raised or not, MPs do not get the chance to respond or ask follow-up questions, except on a few occasions. The Prime Minister is a very busy man, but surely he can spare an extra half day on the few occasions he makes it down to Parliament and turn it into a full day session.

Of course, Parliament has its own rules and regulations which dictate how sessions are run and how time on the floor is allocated. However, as the arm of government that ratifies the laws, it can amend the rules it operates on.

Time allotted to MPs will become more of an issue of concern in the next Parliament, which has only one opposition MP and one independent MP. If the current rules and regulations of Parliament are to continue, all sessions of Parliament will be a debate among members of the ruling party, if they choose to debate at all.

This is not to mean that the rules and regulations of Parliament should be changed just because the composition of the house has changed but the rules were askew to begin with. They should be changed in a manner that allows MPs a modicum of respect to at least be able to complete their sentences.

The minority voice matters, especially in a democracy. This fact is not lost on the ruling party, which champions the rights of minorities and the ostracised. As the party that holds the majority of seats in Parliament, it should be an easy task to table a motion to amend the rules.

It is true that the task of coming up with a rule about time allotted on the floor of Parliament is challenging, taking all possible future Parliament compositions in mind but some ground rules can be laid down. For instance, the bulk of time, like an hour or two, can be allotted to opposition parties, in general, with a minimum of five or 10 minutes given to each party and the rest divvied up according to the number of seats each party has.

Of course, there would be unwelcome consequences from doing this. No one can be sure that MPs will use this time to bring forth sound arguments and raise real issues. Yet the public, seeing representatives speak in Parliament and go head to head on various issues, is likely to feel a part of the process, a process of debate and democracy.

With a sense of belonging comes a sense of responsibility, a responsibility to make sure that whoever is elected to Parliament is willing and able to argue and raise issues with logic and reason. The more that people notice democracy taking place in the very house of the legislature, the more likely they are to want to be a part of the process; not only a part of the process but also a part of a type of education. After all, democracy is not something that just pops up one day out of nowhere. It is a continuous evolution of ideas that, through time, becomes something concrete.

Admittedly, not everyone who makes it to Parliament has the makings of a real politician, a politician who is aware of about the issues of his constituency and cares about them. The phenomenon of politicians being elected who do not share these characteristics is often the result of the public not truly knowing who it is they are electing.

If the habits of debating and exchanging ideas are the norm in Parliament, then, truly, the public, once it starts to follow Parliament, will weed out those who are not part of the process.

No one expects everyone to agree with whatever is said and done. However, giving time to hear someone out, no matter how silly it might seem to someone else, is a beginning. In the process, those that are interested but shy away from politics are likely to come forth, not for the sake of being an MP but for the ideas and principles they stand for.

The next Parliament, if it continues with the trend of the past, will be just a collection of people who, for the longest time, have not uttered a word against anything spoken in the house. If and when the one opposition or independent MP speaks out in Parliament with the same limitations as was in place in the last Parliament, their words will definitely be drowned out by the silence of the rest.