The doctrine of Parliamentary privilege has no place in a modern Essay

The doctrine of Parliamentary privilege has no place in a modern democratic society. Discuss - Essay Example To understand the magnitude of the doctrine in the modern political establishment, parliamentary privilege can be illustrated to be synonymous with parliamentary system. Even if debate for its review and in extreme debates its abolition persist, it is an issue that cannot be abandoned just in the heat of the arguments. The following discourse explores the possibilities of abandoning the doctrine based on some of its principles, in light of their appropriateness in a modern democracy. Parliamentary privilege and it purpose Parliamentary privilege according to legal experts is the immunity accorded some legislators whereby the legislators enjoy legal protection against criminal or civil liability in the course of performing their legislative duties (BBC2 para 7)1. Essentially, the privilege makes it possible also for parliament to debate or question issues that could interfere with court ongoing judicial proceedings in a case, expose state secrets, undermine national security, scour fo reign relations, and slander individuals – whether parliamentarians or not. The concept of parliamentary privilege has its roots in the Westminster system and is widely applied across the world. The privilege emerged as a direct result of the contentions that hundreds of years ago existed between the courts the Crown, and the House of Commons2 (Attorney General’s Department para 4). Some of the countries that apply the privilege to parliament other than Britain include Australia, the United Sates of America, Canada, and Kenya, in Africa. In the UK for example, such privileges allow members of the two Houses (House of Commons and House of Lords) to freely deliberate in their participation in parliament without fearing legal action based on claims of contravening the Official Secrets Act, contempt of court or slander. This privilege also assures parliamentarian that they are immune from civil arrests in matters undertaken within the precincts of parliament, in this case the Palace of Westminister3 according to the BBC1 (para 2). However this is conditional in that the members of parliament only enjoy this privilege if their statements are uttered as part of parliamentary proceeding. One such event that reinforces the application of parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom is with respect to the Zircon affair as it threatened to reveal national secrets. Protection of the parliament against any form of interference while handling legislative obligations is by far a genuine reason for the existence of such freedom as accorded to parliamentarians (Limon 34). However, abuse of the privileges appears to be inseparable from the process of their enjoyment. The purpose of the privilege accorded to parliament rests within the context of legislative duties but other contingent intricacies of interpretation have always made efforts futile to identify balance the genuine purposes. Parliament has failed to implement the appropriate balance and checks that w ould facilitate the relevant procedures to be applied in determining parliamentary privilege usage as genuine or not. Democratic institutions need such control as would be necessary for their independence on one hand while their abuse is clearly identified and dealt with amicably on the other hand. Arguments against Parliamentary Privilege The basic rule that parliamentary privilege is intended to achieve is resolve issues bearing a matter that is of public interest