The situation which arose in the parliament last week raises important questions about parliamentary fairness, democratic norms, and the balance of power in a heavily one-sided legislature.
The Government’s Perspective
From the government's standpoint, the Prime Minister and Speaker of the House followed procedural rules. If no government MP indicated their intent to speak, and the leader of the opposition had not yet been called upon, the Prime Minister had the right to move to close the debate. The government, with its overwhelming 15-2 majority, may argue that allowing the opposition leader to always have the final say would be an unusual precedent that could undermine the government's authority over legislative proceedings.
They could also argue that parliamentary debate is not structured in a way that guarantees the opposition leader a final response. Traditionally, speakers are called in an alternating fashion, with no explicit rule stating the opposition leader must go last. If such a privilege were to be granted, it could require formal changes to standing orders rather than being decided on a case-by-case basis.
The Opposition’s Perspective
On the other hand, the opposition leader’s request is rooted in democratic fairness and the principle of meaningful debate. Given that the government dominates the chamber with a 15-2 majority, allowing the opposition leader to respond comprehensively after all government MPs have spoken would ensure that counterarguments are fully addressed.
In a democratic system, robust debate is essential. If the government chooses when to end a debate, particularly in a scenario where senior government MPs had not yet spoken but also had not declined to speak, it raises concerns of strategic maneuvering rather than true parliamentary dialogue. The perception could be that the government cut off debate to prevent the opposition from offering a strong rebuttal.
Additionally, parliamentary debates are meant to inform the public, not just the chamber. In a system where one party holds overwhelming power, giving the opposition leader the opportunity to address all government arguments ensures that alternative viewpoints are properly aired.
How the story unfolded: https://youtu.be/fo_V1RRVjt8?si=p8MxuA8m6Pei2vlP
A Balanced Conclusion
Procedurally, the Prime Minister had the authority to close the debate. However, in the spirit of democracy and fairness, the opposition leader’s request is reasonable and should be considered in future sittings. A compromise could be formalizing a rule allowing the leader of the opposition the final rebuttal if they request it, particularly when the government has a strong majority.
This would not disrupt parliamentary procedures but would instead strengthen democratic debate and accountability. The ruling party should recognize that maintaining a healthy democracy means allowing the opposition to challenge its arguments effectively—especially in a lopsided parliament where government voices already dominate the discussion.
