Holmes' job description
Holmes' job descriptionBy Editor
Thursday February 14, 2008 [03:00]
There is nothing wrong with President Levy Mwanawasa appointing Cecil Holmes to be his minister of presidential affairs. But there is everything wrong to appoint Holmes to be presidential affairs minister for the reasons Levy stated.
Levy told Holmes that he was being appointed to "look at the party, at the province, district and even at the constituency level, ward and branch" and that he would like to be fully informed so much that even if he were not there, he had to be in charge. This is clearly unacceptable.
What is acceptable is the other part of Holmes' job which Levy says would involve assisting on issues regarding the Republican presidency, where he would be working with the minister and deputy minister of finance.
There is no doubt Levy needs a lot of assistance in this domain and employing Holmes to assist him in this regard is something that should be acceptable. But to pay Holmes a government salary for him to assist Levy with MMD work amounts to abuse of public resources. It is actually a corrupt act for which Levy should be made answerable later on.
Public funds, as our law stands today, cannot be used to fund the ruling party or Levy's participation in it.
Of course, the MMD as the ruling party or the party in power may enjoy the advantage of incumbency, but this must still be within the law. If they want to do this they should accordingly amend the law, the constitution.
Our current political setup separates the ruling party from government - the ruling party and government are not one and the same. Yes, the party in power can impose its policies on the government through its majority in Parliament or otherwise. But this does not mean its activities or officials should in any way be funded by the state.
Zambians need to be very vigilant when it comes to issues like these because this is how de facto one party states are created. We don't need this.
We don't need a one party state in any form - de jure or de facto. What we need is a well functioning multi-party political system. If there is need for the MMD, as a ruling party, to be funded by the state in any way, this should be under the law or by a constitutional provision and not in an arbitrary way by the President.
Moreover, if taxpayers' money is to be spent on the MMD, it will only be fair to extend the same to other deserving political parties in the country. We are opposed to any tendency towards a one party state because we know very well the dangers that lurk in such a political order.
A one party state in any form, except at rare moments in history, is a recipe for tyranny. We saw from our experience under the Chiluba regime that you don't necessarily need a de jure one party state to see the tyranny. Frederick Chiluba did it with simply a de facto one party state.
There was very little difference between what Chiluba could do with a de facto one party state and what UNIP did with a de jure or legislated one party political system. Our experience is that a one party state under any form is a disaster that should be avoided at all cost.
Abuse of public funds to entrench the party in power may sometimes appear desirable especially when the government is doing very well and those in office appear to be very good leaders.
But let us not forget that all the dictatorships in history were started or nurtured by leaders who started off on a very good and popular base. And they used this prestige to become dictators and tyrants.
Allowing public resources to be used for partisan work and on partisan officials is the quickest route to political decay and degeneration. A one party state of any form leads to unchecked corruption. It is said that if gold rusts, what will iron do?
Sure, iron readily rusts and we could be looking at cheap iron. The gold here is alright, but the problem lies in its identification and processing in the surrounding rock.
But this needs a good democratic political environment under which the people can make real political choices. Whatever we do should not lead to a de facto one party state and anachronism now or in the future.
Let us not forget that the MMD itself was born out of opposition to this type of political order; it wouldn't have been formed if the one party political system in any form was accepted. In fact, the very dynamo that propelled the MMD was the rejection of this anachronistic tendency. What has happened now that we wish to stop vibrant dialectic?
Is it that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Is it our commitment to the ruling MMD and to ensure that it stays in power forever? Or are we so convinced that we are the few chosen ones to fulfill God's secret plan to serve us?
The fact is, allowing those in power to use public resources in this way will lead to a de facto one party state - a state that is always linked with tyranny and dictatorship.
And any honestly genuine person who still thinks clearly can see that there is a serious wrong in this aspect of Holmes' job description as presidential affairs minister. This needs to be opposed by all Zambians of good will.
This is not a legitimate way of enjoying the advantages of incumbency because it amounts to corruption, it is a recipe for tyranny and disaster. Let us challenge this and ensure that taxpayers money is not illegally applied under whatever scheme to partisan politics, agendas and other designs.
Levy needs to be advised on Holmes' job description. The Secretary to the Cabinet should have advised him on this issue, that things can't work this way.
If he needs any assistance to help him with MMD work, let the MMD as a party pay the salary or wages of such a person. Actually, Levy really needs help in his role as president on the MMD. But the cost of this should not be met by the state, but by the MMD itself.
Labels: CORRUPTION
posted by MrK @ 4:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home