Mute MPs are those we never hear on the floor of Parliament or publicly speak to issues that come before Parliament.
Whenever some citizens, myself included, complain about why some MPs would serve their term and yet we barely know they exist except to make up the numbers of their caucuses, the usual response is that parliamentary work is not only done on the floor of the House or during plenary sessions but also in committees and that those Mute MPs do participate in committee work.
Well, no one disputes that committee work is an integral part of parliamentary work. However, I don’t buy for a moment the argument that doing committee work is the reason why an MP should be excused for not being able to participate in debates on the floor of the House that eventually lead to votes on important national affairs.
On the contrary, the natural course of events should rather mean that an MP who actively participated in committee deliberations and had access to documents and/or presentation(s) on the subject matter, should be in a much more informed position to debate the matter on the floor of the House than other MPs.
If all the knowledge acquired during committee meetings cannot equip an MP to participate in a plenary debate on the subject matter, I’m afraid that MP should not be in Parliament. Unless of course, people want us to believe that plenary debates are meaningless and do not shape legislation or do not have any impact on shaping public policy.
‘Parle’ in French means, speak. The French translation for Parliament is Parlement. Parliament or Parlement is a place to speak, to debate, to discuss, to jaw-jaw and then to make laws and shape public policy for development. Please let us not make excuses for people who go to ‘Parle-ment’ to stay Mute!