By Our Reporter
Nepal’s latest quorum crisis has exposed a problem that is bigger than one failed sitting. When Parliament cannot proceed with an important bill because too few lawmakers are present, the issue is not simply attendance. It is about whether elected representatives are treating parliamentary work as their primary responsibility.
The controversy began after the House of Representatives failed to meet the required quorum, preventing a bill from being presented. Rastriya Swatantra Party lawmaker Ashika Tamang responded by arguing that lawmakers often leave Parliament after marking their attendance because they need to visit ministries and meet ministers and secretaries to raise constituency concerns.
Her explanation deserves consideration. MPs do need to deal with government agencies. Constituents bring complaints about stalled projects, administrative decisions, land issues, development works and access to public services. Ministries and civil servants often hold the power to resolve those problems. An MP who spends time following up on such matters is not necessarily avoiding parliamentary responsibility.
But that argument cannot become an excuse for abandoning the House. The central problem is simple: if an MP signs the attendance register, claims the allowances associated with attending parliamentary proceedings and then leaves without participating in the business of the House, the system creates a serious accountability gap.
Attendance should mean more than a signature. Parliament is not an office where an employee merely clocks in and walks out. Its core responsibility is to debate laws, scrutinise government actions, approve budgets, question ministers and represent citizens in the national forum. If lawmakers routinely leave after registering their presence, they weaken every one of those functions.
The Speaker therefore needs to take this issue seriously. The House should establish a system that distinguishes between signing the attendance book and actually participating in parliamentary proceedings. If attendance-based allowances are linked to sitting days, lawmakers should not receive the same benefit simply for signing in and disappearing. The rules should clearly define attendance and participation, with appropriate deductions where lawmakers fail to meet the requirement.
The ruling party also has a responsibility. Government and party leaders cannot complain about weak parliamentary participation while quietly tolerating it. Whips should ensure that lawmakers remain available when important business is scheduled, particularly when bills are being presented, debated or decided.
The same standard must apply to opposition parties. Parliamentary accountability cannot become a partisan weapon. Opposition lawmakers have every right to challenge the government, but repeatedly leaving the House while demanding greater government accountability makes little sense.
Tamang also raised another legitimate issue: the quality of parliamentary debate. Long speeches are not necessarily productive speeches. If lawmakers repeat the same arguments, exceed their allotted time and consume hours without adding evidence or proposing solutions, Parliament becomes less effective. The answer, however, is not to spend less time in the House. It is to make the time count.
The Speaker can help by enforcing speaking limits consistently and discouraging repetition. Parliamentary committees can also play a bigger role in detailed policy discussions, allowing the full House to focus on decisions, accountability and major national questions.
But the government must also address the reason MPs say they are forced to visit ministries. If lawmakers are constantly queuing outside ministers’ offices to solve constituency problems, it suggests something is wrong with the relationship between Parliament and the executive. MPs should not have to personally chase bureaucrats to get routine public services delivered. Their role is to legislate and scrutinise government, not become informal intermediaries between citizens and civil servants.
The government should therefore create a structured mechanism through which lawmakers can submit constituency complaints and track responses without physically visiting ministries. A digital parliamentary constituency grievance system could record complaints, assign them to responsible agencies and provide deadlines for action. That would save lawmakers’ time while making ministries more accountable.
The Speaker, meanwhile, should publish regular attendance and participation records. Transparency would change behaviour more effectively than repeated warnings. Citizens should know which lawmakers attend sittings, participate in debates and vote on important legislation. The government, ruling party and opposition should also agree on clear rules for parliamentary allowances. Public money should compensate genuine parliamentary work, not merely presence on paper.
The deeper issue is one of institutional culture. Nepal cannot build an effective Parliament if lawmakers see attendance as an administrative formality. Nor can it expect serious legislation from a House where members are physically absent or mentally disengaged. MPs have demanding responsibilities outside the chamber. That is understood. But when the House is sitting, especially when legislation is on the agenda, Parliament must come first.
A signature in an attendance book should never be enough to claim that an MP has done the job. The public did not elect lawmakers merely to sign in. They elected them to show up, speak up, scrutinise power and vote. If Parliament cannot even maintain its quorum, the problem is not with the attendance book. It is with the attitude behind the signature.
Login to add a comment