Shameran Abed In our country, we seem not to understand the difference between the responsibilities of a member of parliament and those of local government institutions. Parliamentarians, and candidates for parliamentary seats, themselves are often confused. Ask any candidate for the upcoming general elections what they will do if elected and they will tell you about the school they want to build, or the road they want to fix, or the old factory they want to regenerate — none of which falls within the remit of these to-be parliamentarians. Instead, they are supposed to make laws, or to scrap them, or to amend them. Parliamentarians are lawmakers, not school-builders. However, partly because of their lack of understanding of their actual role, and partly because the electorate expect these things from their member of parliament rather than from their local governments, our parliamentarians have traditionally been glorified lobbyists for their constituents who can’t find time to attend parliament because they wait for hours outside ministers’ offices to lobby for a bridge or a health complex to be built in their constituency. That is also what their re-election often depends upon: how much of the government’s attention they were able to direct to their particular area. Can we expect the parliament that will be elected tomorrow to be different in this regard from previous parliaments? Will members of parliament actually attend parliament, putting an end to the perennial quorum crisis, and legislate on their constituents’ behalf, rather than lobbying ministers for handouts. Will they explain to their constituents that building a local school is not their responsibility, but the responsibility of their local government representatives? From what we have seen of the campaigns, and from what we have read of the candidates’ pledges, there is no reason to hold out much hope.