The opposition's return to parliament last month was an encouraging sign for those of us who are keen to see the house function in the manner envisaged by the constitution. However, the presence of the opposition has neither prompted intelligent and illuminating debate on crucial issues on the house floor, nor has it seen the resurgence of the standing committees or enhanced the committees' ability to perform their oversight role.

Many of the committees have neglected to hold their mandatory monthly meetings, and these have often lacked a quorum due to the absence of a sufficient number of lawmakers. Many subcommittees have been formed in the past year to look into allegations of corruption at certain ministries, but no reports have been issued yet. Even more troubling is that the committees that have been meeting with some regularity have failed to perform any kind of oversight function, mostly echoing the positions of the ministries over which they are supposed to extend oversight.

Already three unproductive years have passed, but there is still time for the parliament, and the standing committees in particular, which, by all accounts, the opposition is going to join soon, to achieve something of substance in the two years left before the next elections. To do so, however, the standing committees must take their responsibilities seriously. They must meet, they must raise the difficult questions, and above all, they must retain their independence to criticise the ministries if such criticism is warranted with the opposition taking a lead there. We know the ruling party lawmakers are in a majority on these bodies and the chairmanships have gone to them; yet the opposition can and should make their presence felt through a powerful articulation of their viewpoint. The last two years of the 8th parliament should see some life in the committee system.