THREATS to thwart the passing of the 2011 budget by MPs from both houses and all three parties bring to the fore a number of questions pertaining to representative democracy.
One big question is why they have taken this stance. Is it in pursuit of the general good of their respective constituencies? If so, how did they come to this position especially at a time when they have been trying hard to have the issue of their rewards addressed.
What many people may need to know is what would be achieved if the MPs veto the budget.
Does it mean that the legislature has lost faith in the executive since the budget involves input from all ministries?
What are the legal and political consequences of such a veto? Why have the members of parliament suddenly united in their effort to hold the country to ransom at a time when similar support for the repeal of Posa has been withdrawn?
Which should be coming first here? Is it not that MPs co-sponsor the repeal of this act as it may have a bearing on their campaigns instead of what is happening now?
Parliamentary Monitoring Trust,