Does the US need "Questions"?

[Pangloss]

Every Wednesday CSPAN runs a little 30-minute program that most Americans have never even heard of. Even when they do hear about it, it doesn't sound like a big deal. But to British citizens it's actually quite a large deal. Since roughly WW2, a new constitutional practice has been adopted (now used in most parliamentary systems) in which the opposition party gets 30 minutes to ask the Prime Minister any question it wants. By law he HAS to answer, standing at the Dispatch Box on the floor, as if called to task, but in fact it's considered an honor and a responsibility to answer these questions. An important democratic process. Having the Prime Minister on record on an issue not only clarifies national policy, it also gives the opposition a chance to raise its objections directly with him in person, and not have to work through the proxy of the media interface or public opinion polls.

 

The sessions can be rowdy and even beligerant, and sometimes degenerate into cheap laughs and innuendo. In the video below, current PM Gordon Brown can be heard making quite a verbal gaff, suggesting that his bailing out of British banks "saved the world" (not a good place to stop a sentence), sending the opposition into absolute paroxisms of laughter. But after the laughter fades he does go on to make a very good point, much to the chagrin of his opponents, and the overall result seems very positive. Check it out.

 

ngMs_4I1__o

 

In 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain suggested that something similar could be done in the US. His opponent agreed wholeheartedly, and earlier this year President Obama actually held something along similar lines -- the first presidential "press" conference (open to the media) in which the opposition party was allowed to ask the questions. John McCain asked the first question. I haven't seen too many clips of it, though it did briefly make the news, but I think the press didn't quite know what to think of the whole affair. I wondered at the time if Republicans felt it a "step down" in that they were having to look up to the presidential podium -- the imagery was a bit off, compared with what happens at the PMQ.

 

But I think the idea is a good one in general, and they should explore it further. President Obama has promised to hold press conferences on a regular basis, possibly as often as once a month. This should be part of that process, occurring at least that often. Why not?

 

What do you all think?

[SkepticLance]

Here in New Zealand, we also have parliamentary 'question time'. The only downside is that the opposition tend to use it as an opportunity to try to embarrass the government, rather than for constructive purpose. Overall, though, it is probably worth doing. It certainly publicises any flaws in government policy!

[Klaynos]

In the UK it was until Tony Blair twice a week...

 

I think it's a good thing, good fun to watch, it isn't just the opposition who get to ask questions (the process of getting a question it a bit odd, but the leaders of the two opposition parties get a set number of questions each they can ask) but it can be any member of the house, this can sometimes result, in difficult times, the pm being asked questions that indicate his own party is moving against him.. This is relatively rare mind, GB has only had one or two and most same party questions are "we're wonderful arn't we?"

[ecoli]

wow UK politics looks like a circus.

[Pangloss]

It does look that way and I think there's a definite circus-like atmosphere in many of the videos I've watched. But I think there's also an air of candor and directness that's interestingly lacking from our public debates.

 

With American debate it's almost as if they politicians are so hesitent to avoid descent into "flame wars" that they stop short of anything even remotely direct in their criticisms. And to be sure, I don't think I (personally) would do very well in a situation like this one:

 

xmHt5UEL9sI

 

That sort of thing irks me enough when we see it HERE, and I definitely don't want to see it happening in public debate between government officials.

 

Still, it seems to me that the benefits outweigh this minor disadvantage. I've seen much worse from some of the Asian parliaments, where physical confrontations are not unheard of.

[ParanoiA]

I like the idea. It would be really great if they could impart a sense of honor and statesmanship so that it could be used constructively and perhaps even serve as an example of proper political discourse. I'm afraid it would more than likely just turn into another "show" for campaigning in which the incumbent president suffers even more disadvantage.

 

But I still like the idea enough to try it out.

[Mr Skeptic]

wow UK politics looks like a circus.

 

Funny, that's what I thought after watching one of our presidential debates.

 

I think that this would be worthwhile if it would avoid the current "politician's lips are moving but no information is coming out of his mouth." I think the being required by law to answer is the key to that part.

[JohnB]

Australia also has "Question Time".

 

In our case questions can be asked of the Prime Minister or any Minister concerning the performance or policies of their relevent departments.

 

We also allow government "backbenchers" (Pollies who aren't Ministers) to ask questions as well.

 

The downside to the system is that the opposition often use the time just to score points and attempt to embarrass the government while the government backbenchers ask Dorothy Dixers attempting to embarrass the opposition.

 

However, Question Time is always broadcast live by our ABC radio and as such can be used effectively to let people know what is going on.

 

Unlike the US system, the Executive in Oz is answerable to our Parliment and the idea behind Question Time is to give the Parliment the opportunity to question the Executive branch as to the correctness of their actions.

[CaptainPanic]

Netherlands also has its weekly question time, and any topic can be raised. I believe that questions can be asked to anyone in the government (all ministers, including prime minister).

 

Opposition parties use this time for asking serious questions, and/or to get some attention from the media. And I believe that it's largely the media who can be blamed for making a bit of a circus from the question time. Mostly it's very serious though.

 

All in all, the result of the question time is that ministers have to dodge all kinds of questions and "talk without giving an answer", but that's still better than no question time at all.

 

I think that this would be worthwhile if it would avoid the current "politician's lips are moving but no information is coming out of his mouth." I think the being required by law to answer is the key to that part.

That is almost impossible - you're suggesting that you want a system where a new law or policy is actually making sense for government and opposition?

I'd love to see this, but it's not very realistic - governments and opposition are people. You cannot pass a law if you just admitted that it does not make sense. This would rapidly result in a system where nothing is decided at all...

 

I think we should first start with a whole new system - in our parliament we have parties with weird programs that are based on all kinds of funny assumptions (some are even religious). Some parties cannot (ever) agree with other parties on some topics. Therefore, questions can never be answered, and there exists more than 1 truth.

If politicians were all scientists and engineers, then perhaps the plan would be possible. Unfortunately, not even 10% of the politicians are actually scientists or engineers.

[Sisyphus]

If politicians were all scientists and engineers, then perhaps the plan would be possible. Unfortunately, not even 10% of the politicians are actually scientists or engineers.

 

It would be nice to think so, but I doubt it. Scientists and engineers that are politicians are still politicians, and leaders with those backgrounds haven't really stood out as ideal leaders. The only U.S. Presidents with engineering/science backgrounds are Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter (and arguably Thomas Jefferson, but by modern standards we'd call his education "liberal arts"). The only current world leader I can think of with training as an engineer is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Pangloss
(dupes removed)

[SkepticLance]

To Sisyphus

A national government that is stacked with scientists and engineers is China. And it has an economy that is still growing at 7% per annum in the middle of the recession. Is there a message there?

[Sisyphus]

To Sisyphus

A national government that is stacked with scientists and engineers is China. And it has an economy that is still growing at 7% per annum in the middle of the recession. Is there a message there?

 

Not that I can see, no. You're implying causality? How very unscientific...

[SkepticLance]

Sisyphus

Is your irony detector malfunctioning?

[Sisyphus]

Using blatantly unscientific reasoning to argue for the virtues of scientists in government is indeed ironic (hence the joke), but I thought it was unintentional. Sorry.