I am not so much into drama television series. My experiences with 24, starring Kiefer Sutherland, and Mad Men, starring Jon Hamm, were not so thought-provoking.
I would not deny, however, that I was amused by the story-telling ability ofHollywoodscreenwriters. I was, however, equally biased by my implicit objection of having Americanism thrust throughout the rest of the world.
I often get offended by being preached to live under Luis Vuitton, Vanity Fair and Virgin America. I would much rather live in a world of vibrant market ideas. I distaste monopoly to the extent that I often try to diversify my selection of movies and music.
I felt the same way when I watched the first season of House of Cards – a political drama series starring Kevin Spacey. I sensed an attempt byHollywoodto sensationalise politics in a way that reduces power struggles to mere trivialities. Even then, I was occupied less by the details depicted within the storyline and more by the relatively effective portrayal of American politics.
Unfortunately, I was forced to compare the way politics works in the global superpower to our own impoverished nation. As the drama dictates, however, my comparison was limited to the operation of US Congress and our own Parliament. Much to my disappointment, I came to the notion that our Parliament is merely a house with no cards.
Ever since the EPRDF came into power and re-established the Parliamentary political system in a way that favours its dominance, the house has been dominated by political monopoly. It has never been a place for thoughtful political debate. By and large, it remains a forum for top-down policymaking and partisan showbiz.
It has worsened further still as the dominance of the ruling party has stretched to the extent of total control. With one opposition member of Parliament (MP), the house looks like a congregation of likeminded people with identical political conviction. The drama is limited to improvised lines of questions and answers. It lacks the essential tension paramount to politics.
Some were hopeful that the drama might evolve into a constituent-based debate. But such hopes did not materialise, even after three years.
Whenever MPs, such as Ashebir Woldegiorgis (DD) – the lone independent MP – try to raise constituent-based issues, laughter ensues. It shows that there is no need, from the side of the ruling party, to allow the house debate to devolve into grassroots issues, which could lead to intraparty conflict and eventual self-destruction.
Where could the house get its cards, if not from constituent-based politics?
Some might argue that they could get it from its very foundation – the constitution – if only they could live by it. But the negative side of the equation outweighs the positive. Partisan politics is overwhelming the house, which is failing to serve the very purpose it was designed for.
Of course, this is not to discount the latest change of dynamics. It seems that the house is flexing its regulatory muscle over the executive. But little transpires in the form of a change of real political dynamics. If anything, the latest effort might be considered as a consolidation of a new political pole within the ruling party – albeit in a way that the executive would not have liked.
Could this take us to a new political drama?
My bet is “no”. Rather, it will give the old system a new skin. But the personality of the system will remain as it is.
I consider the latest lumbering of Parliament as a trick pushed forward by a partisan consensus to defy the critics of a dominant one party system. One can see this whenever the Prime Minister addresses the House.
Questions meant to ease public concerns, and designed in a similar fashion, are forwarded by MPs, and the Prime Minister is simply left to take the argument in whichever direction he desires. In doing so, the MPs play their part in the consensus and the Premier leads the tune. Eventually, the argument in favour of responsibility vanishes in vain.
How does a house of cards help, though?
It is obvious that a house of cards is essential for democratic development. But it is not only the house that needs to have cards, but also the MPs.
MPs need a viable card to deliver their constitutional responsibility and effectively play their political role. If their political engagement is meant to be meaningful, in every sense of the word, they need to go beyond partisan consensus and ideological inclinations.
What could transform the house sustainably, however, is ending its ever-increasing political monopolisation. A drama that involves varying political perspectives is what certainly could transform Parliament into a house of useful cards. I believe that our fair nation dearly needs such a drama.
Leave a Reply