THERE was no shortage of drama – and theatrics – in the House of Assembly yesterday.

At the heart of it was the rule about question time being on the agenda unless the House determines otherwise. This is a much-abused rule over the years, and it is very, very far from the first time yesterday that the government of the day set about proceeding with other business instead of giving time for the Opposition to ask questions.

On this occasion, however, the FNM decided enough was enough and dug their heels in, shouting “answer the questions” repeatedly while the likes of Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell shouted “boo” across the chamber.

The Speaker decided enough was enough and adjourned until February 20. The questions remain unanswered, the business the government wanted to proceed with went no further yesterday.

We are quite sure that each political faction will take sides over who was right and who was wrong on the issue, and there will be plenty of finger pointing about what previous administrations did or what previous parties said in Opposition.

However, take a look at the issue of question time itself – and it is very much a tool that, properly used, could improve our governance.

Look across at the Parliament in Britain – from where we draw so many of our Parliamentary traditions – and the regular question time sessions there serve as a good way to hold the government to account, or to demonstrate the strength or otherwise of that government’s would-be challengers.

In recent times, answers given during question time in the UK Parliament exposed Boris Johnson’s shifting explanations for parties during COVID lockdowns, and demonstrated the weakness in the leadership of his successor, Liz Truss. It equally showed one Opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, seemed to lack the ability to hold the government’s feet to the fire, which cost him in election results and saw him lose the leadership.

Such sessions ought to bring the public the answers they need – or show if one or the other side is lacking.

As it is, we treat it like some unwanted scrap of dirt on the agenda to be swept under the political carpet.

Both sides have dismissed the tradition, either to avoid uncomfortable questions or to get on with their own agenda. That latter excuse is not very convincing, however, when on each occasion an MP gets up to speak they often proceed with a long list of thank yous and mentions of constituents rather than getting to the meat and gristle of legislation.

So whether yesterday’s protestations were staged or genuine, and whether government outrage at the behaviour is heartfelt or convenient, the Bahamian people themselves would be better served if we did treat question time with more reverence.

Will this current ruckus bring that about? That seems unlikely – there is too much political point scoring going on for real change out of this particular moment.

But if we lived in a cross-partisan world where sides took a moment to work together on what would raise the standards of public discourse, then forcing the government – any government – to answer questions raised by its opponents is certainly one step to benefit all.

Sadly, notch it up as one more example of how it seems easier to demand transparency when out of power, rather than deliver it once in charge.