By Sanna Tambedou
Parliamentary democracy, for all intents and purposes, must be a representation of the people through their elected representatives in the National Assembly. This is a noble undertaking indeed by any conjecture. Since it’s inconceivable that we all can sit together in the same forum to discuss thematic issues of our national affairs. However despite its technocratic ingenuity it’s marred with several defaults particularly in our third world context, ( here i mean those countries that rely heavily on their benefactors for aids as a result of the colonial relationships).
One key factor that undermines our democracy is the broken thread in communication between the elected and the electorates. If democratic authority must have any meaning, it must include, as one of its canon laws, the derivations of authority to stand for and jealously safeguard the interest of the electorates in manners the elected deem fit could transform their live for the better. This requires an open mind discussion with all citizens within the confines of your constituency from which your authority abides. This we have seen it being done in the languages that bind the two stakeholders, the electorates on one hand the elected representatives on the other. In other words each side speaks the language they understand with unhitched confidence without an iota of doubt.
However, what becomes a problem is when the representatives of the people enter the House of Parliament. The metaphorical thread that binds the two sides no longer exists. It’s trampled upon with such vicious proclivity that one wonders if it has ever existed. The representative of the people starts speaking in a language which hitherto wasn’t the conduit through which he/ she canvassed his/ her votes. The people or rather electorates become confounded and bewildered of the new lease of life of their presumed Saviour who should salve them in the tumult of national affairs adopts.