The role of a Member of Parliament in most parliaments is to participate in enacting laws, approving international treaties, concluding peace and alliances, monitoring any expenditures not included in the budget, accepting or refusing to impose taxes and fees, monitoring national wealth, reviewing and approving the state budget, and the right in forming committees, expressing desires in public matters, the right to interrogate, put confidence in ministers, express non-cooperation with the prime minister, and so on and so forth.
However, since 1963 what we have seen is an increasing number of MPs are not concerned with these issues, except when issues are of personal nature – politically and financially. Consequently, they focused on issues that bring personal benefits – wealth, whether from government gifts and grants or by exploiting their supervisory positions to achieve or expand their commercial interests and enter into deals with the government; appointing their relatives and voters in senior state positions, regardless of competence and paying attention to providing services in their electoral district such as roads, cooperative societies and mosques, and have even shown interest in lampposts and garbage containers for the benefit of their voters.
This radical difference or position taken by an MP led to the emergence or increase in random hires, or appointment in senior positions without going through the normal channels of promotion or following the rule of seniority or eligibility.
In contrast to these, the concern of others who are non-sectarians and non-tribal sectarians is to practice the parliamentary work in a proper manner, or close to that, and therefore they often did not accept for themselves or begged ministers or their president to employ their relatives or their voters in higher positions, and if they did, it would be minimal and out of conviction of the competence of those nominating him.
The result that we see in front of us is that the MPs who showed politeness and self-esteem did not seek appointing their constituents or their relatives to obtain the fatty positions, nor did they make illegal fortunes for themselves. As for those who were not ashamed were the most harvesting the government positions for their relatives and constituents, and this is how we saw that politeness and integrity were harmful and the lack of modesty is useful.
It is therefore necessary to rationalize this improper behavior and issue an order or law or call it what you want that prohibits appointment to any high position, if the employee does not meet the required conditions and passing specific tests.
The issuance of such a decision will remove the embarrassment of the prime minister and the rest of the ministers, and prevent them from accepting any exceptions.
Whoever tries to identify the background of the majority of senior state officials will know the meaning of the subject of this article, and this is not an attack on the MPs who sought and mediated to appoint their relatives or voters to the highest positions and the best embassies of the country overseas. Rather, it is a criticism of the administrative and political system that allowed such appointments.
By Ahmad alsarraf