In a few weeks, the Kingdom will hold its first municipal elections with voters required to choose half the members of the councils. The other half will be appointed. However, Article 18 of the Municipal Council Law states that the municipal council sessions should be held in camera. This provision is in clear violation of voters’ right to monitor the activities of the people they elect to the council. It also runs contrary to upholding the principle of transparency required in such circumstances.
Among the pillars of the culture of election are monitoring and transparency. Voters must be able to monitor the performance of their representatives and hold them accountable. An elected member in a legislative or municipal council is primarily responsible to his voters who elected him to that post as well as to society at large. An elected member must fully commit himself to sticking to the platform on the basis of which voters preferred him to other candidates.
When we deny the voters the right to monitor the performance of their representatives we deny them the opportunity to evaluate objectively the performance of the municipal council whose work is directly related to people’s daily life.
The practice of shrouding sessions in secrecy is something adopted by most elected bodies all over the world, whether legislative or municipal. However, the right to hold secret sessions is restricted and is only exercised in extreme circumstances. An elected council thus rarely resorts to holding closed sessions and if it does so, it is only in extraordinary circumstances and never as a matter of routine.
The citizen who elects the council members attending these sessions has every right to access the session’s agenda and know the outcome of deliberations. This would make the council members feel the heavy burden of the responsibility laid on them and making them accountable to society as well as to the voters who put their trust in them.
It is important that the said article be reviewed and rephrased to reflect the true spirit of the culture of elections. The principle of accountability and transparency must be upheld and consolidated. The council must only hold closed sessions in extreme circumstances and under strict terms defined by the law. This matter should not be left to the interpretation of the council members.
What is the use of electing someone to a public office when we have no right to monitor his performance or hold him accountable for any shortcomings? How can we decide if a member really deserves to be elected for a second term?
