The British had the idea over a hundred years ago where the Prime Minister and the other Ministers would show up to be openly grilled by the members of Parliament. It is also possible in many countries for such a member of parliament to write a written letter to a Minister demanding they answer the question, and there is often a process to compel them to answer. A minister might also show up before a committee to be questioned, with the threat of perjury charges if they lie or mislead. According to the Sejm in Poland, in 2011-2015, over 30,000 questions were issued this way to Ministers.
How useful do you think this stuff is, and how might it be made better?
Comments
I think the idea of PMQs is great in theory, but its use is largely diminished by the fact that many politicians have a tendency to lie, sidestep, obfuscate, or all of the above. That’s where dragging them to committee makes more sense, assuming that the threats of charges aren’t empty.
That said, they can still be a very good tool for accountability and letting the public decide if the ministers being grilled managed to defend themselves and their decisions, although it risks devolving into some soapbox for populism
To preface: in the Finnish parliament, both ministers and other members of parliament are present in every plenary session and there is no house of commons vs. house of lords split.
Something like that is used in Finland: a group of 20 or more members of parliament can present the cabinet or individual minister a question (interpellation might be the right term, not 100% sure) "in order to measure trust" to them. The recipient must answer in 15 days in a parliament plenary session, after which the matter is discussed and a vote is cast on whether said minister or the cabinet is trusted or not.
These are done once in a while, it’s definitely not something out of the ordinary. One of the most recent ones was some weeks ago about the government’s increased budget cuts in healthcare and social services.
The Finnish culture of discourse in the parliament is much more stiff upper lip than the British one, meaning people mostly stay quite calm and shouting matches or booing doesn’t happen.
A few months back it was revealed that 40 percent of questions to ministers where asked by just one MP. He had asked 180 questions in just two months. Turns out he was using AI to generate the questions. So my suggestion for improvements is to ban those.
PMQs looks silly in the UK at times and a lot is performative, but it means they have to be shit-hot on all topics, every week. Local MPs can have small issues given the biggest audience. The opposition can directly grill the leader. Like, imagine Trump having to stand through that every week. He would crumble, get angry and look an utter fool. Instead he can totally lead discourse and put out orders from his office unopposed. It is a humbling thing. Tony Blair’s final one is an interesting watch (where he got a rare round of applause too) as he said it always terrified him.
In Czech, it’s called "interpelace", and it takes place every Thursday afternoon in the Chamber of Deputies.
MPs ask questions of ministers. I think that is an important part of the democratic system.
Some years ago a similar concept was introduced in Germany in which the Chancellor and ministers answer questions of MPs every few months.
But I have to say it’s pretty tame. The government ministers can easily avoid to answer critical questions because of the way things are set up.
It’s very strict about timing. The MP has 1 minute to ask a question and then the Chancellor/minister has 1 minute to answer, then the MP can ask one follow up question and then again 1 minute answer.
So it’s not really an in-depth discussion but rather both sides just bringing up their talking points that are known anyways.
Here in
Europe’s buttholeHungary this is pretty much the only chance to ask questions from Orbán. This is how it usually goes:Opposition MP: "[absolutely legit question]"
Orbán: "[insulting and/or offensive joke about Opposition MP and/or their party] [deflecting blame and turning it against the ‘left’ in general] [lies and even more lies] [some obvious bullshit to round it out]"
So yeah, not very useful.
I am probably misunderstanding, but isn’t the main job of MP’s to question ministers? At least, in the Netherlands that’s the case.
I am not sure what is so special about the idea you describe. This is what being a minister is all about. Here in The Netherlands minister have ministerial responsibility. They are ultimately responsible for their ministery. The parlement can ask for a debate and vote for a motion of disaproval or no confidence. I think its nothing more than common sense these mechanism are put in place.