interpellation clause

简明释义

质询条款质询条款

英英释义

例句

1.During the parliamentary session, the opposition utilized the interpellation clause to hold the minister accountable for recent policy failures.

在议会会议期间，反对派利用质询条款让部长对最近的政策失误负责。

2.An effective interpellation clause can enhance transparency in government operations.

有效的质询条款可以增强政府运作的透明度。

3.The president responded to the questions posed under the interpellation clause with detailed explanations.

总统对根据质询条款提出的问题进行了详细解释。

4.The interpellation clause was invoked multiple times last year to address public concerns about healthcare reforms.

去年多次引用了质询条款来解决公众对医疗改革的关切。

5.The new legislation includes an interpellation clause that allows lawmakers to question government officials directly.

新立法包含一个质询条款，允许立法者直接质询政府官员。

作文

In modern democratic societies, the concept of accountability is paramount. One of the mechanisms through which government officials are held accountable is the use of an interpellation clause. This term refers to a provision in parliamentary procedures that allows members of the legislative body to question government ministers about their actions and decisions. The interpellation clause serves as a vital tool for fostering transparency and ensuring that elected officials remain answerable to the public they serve.The interpellation clause is often invoked during parliamentary sessions, where lawmakers can formally request explanations from ministers regarding specific policies or events. This process not only empowers legislators but also reinforces the principle of checks and balances within the government. By allowing parliamentarians to scrutinize the actions of the executive branch, the interpellation clause helps to prevent the abuse of power and promotes responsible governance.Moreover, the effectiveness of the interpellation clause lies in its ability to bring critical issues to the forefront of public discourse. When a minister is called to answer questions, the proceedings are typically made public, allowing citizens to witness firsthand the accountability mechanisms in action. This transparency is crucial in maintaining public trust in governmental institutions. For instance, if a minister fails to provide satisfactory answers, it may lead to public outcry, media scrutiny, and potentially even calls for resignation or further investigation.In many countries, the interpellation clause is enshrined in the constitution or parliamentary rules, providing a formal framework for its application. However, the frequency and effectiveness of its use can vary significantly across different political systems. In some nations, the interpellation clause is a routine part of the legislative process, while in others, it may be used sparingly or even avoided altogether due to political considerations.The political implications of the interpellation clause cannot be understated. It often serves as a battleground for opposition parties to challenge the ruling government. When a government is under pressure due to economic downturns or scandals, the opposition may strategically use the interpellation clause to capitalize on these vulnerabilities. This dynamic can lead to intense debates and highlight differing political ideologies, ultimately influencing public opinion and electoral outcomes.However, the use of the interpellation clause is not without its challenges. Some government officials may attempt to evade direct answers or provide vague responses, undermining the purpose of the mechanism. Additionally, excessive reliance on interpellations can lead to a confrontational atmosphere in parliament, hindering collaborative governance and legislative progress.In conclusion, the interpellation clause is a fundamental aspect of democratic accountability, enabling legislators to question and hold government officials accountable for their actions. Its role in promoting transparency, fostering public trust, and facilitating political debate is essential in any functioning democracy. As societies continue to evolve, the effective implementation of the interpellation clause will remain crucial in ensuring that governments operate with integrity and in the best interests of their citizens.

在现代民主社会中，问责制的概念至关重要。政府官员被追究责任的机制之一是使用质询条款。这个术语指的是议会程序中的一项规定，允许立法机构的成员就政府部长的行为和决定进行质询。质询条款作为促进透明度和确保当选官员对他们所服务的公众负责的重要工具。质询条款通常在议会会议期间被引用，立法者可以正式要求部长就特定政策或事件提供解释。这个过程不仅赋予立法者权力，还强化了政府内部制衡原则。通过允许议员审查行政部门的行为，质询条款有助于防止滥用权力，并促进负责任的治理。此外，质询条款的有效性在于它能够将关键问题带到公众话语的前沿。当一位部长被要求回答问题时，相关程序通常会公开进行，使公民能够亲眼目睹问责机制的运作。这种透明度对于维护公众对政府机构的信任至关重要。例如，如果一位部长未能提供令人满意的答案，可能会导致公众抗议、媒体审查，甚至可能引发辞职或进一步调查的呼声。在许多国家，质询条款被载入宪法或议会规则中，为其应用提供了正式框架。然而，其使用的频率和有效性在不同政治体系之间可能存在显著差异。在某些国家，质询条款是立法过程中常规的一部分，而在其他国家，由于政治考虑，它可能被稀疏使用，甚至完全避免。质询条款的政治影响不容小觑。它通常作为反对党挑战执政政府的战场。当政府因经济衰退或丑闻而面临压力时，反对派可能会战略性地利用质询条款来抓住这些脆弱点。这种动态可能导致激烈的辩论，突显出不同的政治意识形态，最终影响公众舆论和选举结果。然而，质询条款的使用并非没有挑战。一些政府官员可能试图逃避直接回答或提供模糊的回应，从而削弱该机制的目的。此外，过度依赖质询可能会导致议会中对抗的气氛，妨碍协作治理和立法进展。总之，质询条款是民主问责制的基本方面，使立法者能够质询并追究政府官员的责任。它在促进透明度、增强公众信任和促进政治辩论方面的作用在任何正常运作的民主国家中都是必不可少的。随着社会的不断发展，质询条款的有效实施将继续在确保政府以诚信和公民最佳利益运作方面发挥关键作用。