Mitchell O’Brien
49
conflict-management tool, rather than as a place to entrench positions of conflicting parties. The rules of procedure, which determine how to conduct the business of parliament and defi ne the relationship between the majority and minority parties, need to be fair and applied impartially. Discussion of bills should not be blocked by majority parties, and legislation should not be passed without debate or, when the legislation being considered is important or detailed, without referring it to a committee. This is particularly important in parliamentary (as opposed to presidential) systems, when the executive belongs to the majority party in parliament, because without proper debate, parliament is unable to fulfill its oversight of the executive. Sometimes members have little choice but to pass legislation quickly, particularly when the executive holds some legislative power. For example, in Brazil’s constitution, the president has a right to bring a bill to a vote using urgency procedures (Macedo 1999). In such instances the government can effectively curtail the ability of parliament to fulfill one of its core functions. Concerns over the fairness of debate in the chamber always arise when one political party commands a clear majority. Parliamentary rules of procedure set guidelines for debate in the chamber and, when applied impartially, can be relied on by both parliamentarians and minority parties seeking to use the chamber as a forum to discuss controversial issues. The rules of procedure are important when the peacebuilding potential of parliament is being considered, because they provide the framework within which parliamentarians voice their concerns on the floor of parliament, while ensuring that the focus remains on the issues at hand. Clear rules of procedure and the resulting structured debate facilitate parliaments’ conflict-prevention efforts by providing a more orderly debate about the issues. If rules of procedure are not fair and reasonably enforced, parliament runs the risk of allowing debates to degenerate into personal attacks rather than focusing on important policy considerations. If debates are seen as unsuccessful, parliament may be marginalized, and antagonists may decide to revisit disputes outside of the parliamentary forum. The presiding officer and political parties have a vital role to play in ensuring that the floor of parliament achieves its potential as a forum for dialogue. Presiding Officer of Parliament Often the presiding officer or Speaker is a member of parliament chosen to preside over, and be in charge of, the business proceedings and administration of parliament. In a bicameral system there is a presiding officer for each of the chambers. They are the most prestigious and important figures in parliament because they serve as the arbiters of two equally important, yet competing, principles of parliament: the right of the majority to conduct parliamentary business in a reasonable and efficient manner and the right of the minority in parliament to be heard and to keep the majority accountable (Levy 1998). Parliaments do not have a universal process by which they appoint presiding officers or Speakers; a common method is through a vote of the chamber, whether by voice vote or secret ballot. As such, it is typical that the presiding officer belongs to the majority party in parliament. The legal basis for the position of presiding officer differs among countries. Some countries define the position in their constitution; in other countries, the position has evolved over time and is based on tradition and convention.