2025 Budget: A parliamentary debate that could actually have substance
Source: in-cyprus.com
We television series enthusiasts (of foreign, Cypriot, and Greek shows) have now acquired sufficient expertise to recognise when a series is tasteless and when producers are merely adding new episodes that ultimately do more harm than good. Even with cinema, we know that in a sequel, each subsequent film is worse than its predecessor.
But our topic isn’t the quality of TV series or film sequels. Our subject is the annual state budget debate in the House of Representatives, a process that begins this afternoon and will drag on until Wednesday evening, when we’ll finally learn that the budget has been approved by a majority of the legislative body.
The constitutionally required approval of the state budget is one thing, and it’s necessary. To some extent, it’s also necessary to hear each party’s reasons for supporting or opposing it. What isn’t necessary, but has become established through decades of parliamentary practice, is the speeches from each and every MP.
And so, like most TV series, the discussion starts with a bang (to capture public interest). What follows maintains the same level… merely sustaining interest until reaching the grand finale. Or, as often happens, we simply lose patience before seeing the end and move on.
Look at how the discussion unfolds every year: It dutifully begins with party leaders (unless one leads the assembly, in which case either they’ll step down to speak or the most influential MP will be chosen).
Then, every single member of the House of Representatives will speak, with parties pre-planning speaking slots (just as TV channels carefully schedule their series, parties determine speaking times based on party status). The discussion closes with statements from parliamentary representatives or MPs.
Those with the patience and appetite (and you’ll notice on TV that even MPs can’t endure it) to follow the debate will realise that in many cases (if not most), some MPs’ speeches have little to do with the state budget. They’re more about showing they took the podium because they were told to do so.
There are those MPs who, regardless of having nothing to say beyond the obvious, might feature prominently in the coming days (thanks to their cosy relationships with certain websites).
And of course, there are cases where MPs’ speeches have both substance and content, but because ‘certain people don’t like them’, the average citizen might think they never spoke at all.
The House debate on the state budget could be very different; it could have substance and content. Only those with something relevant to say about the budget should speak. As ordinary citizens, we don’t need MPs to tell us about rising costs, fuel prices, low private sector wages, and everything else we experience. We know these things firsthand.
What we ordinary citizens expect is a substantive approach to all these issues with specific suggestions for addressing them. Shouting from the assembly podium and finger-wagging add nothing. Useful is the person who can propose a workable solution, not the one who takes the easy route and… merely throws stones.
The original article: belongs to in-cyprus.com .
