Arrogance over pay rise

Arrogance over pay rise
Written by Editor

There’s need for our politicians to learn to listen to their fellow citizens, especially those who pay taxes, those from whose taxes their salaries are paid and other government expenditure are paid.

These salaries and allowances of our politicians are paid from money deducted from the taxpayers’ salaries and other earnings. In August this year, Cabinet decided to increase salaries and allowances for senior government officials and constitutional office holders by 15 per cent.

Cabinet, in addition, approved the introduction of a “responsibility allowance”, which was to be paid to the President, Vice-President, ministers and deputy ministers.

They also approved an increment in the rates of allowances currently being paid to ministers, deputy ministers and senior government officials by 50 per cent of basic salary for housing allowance and 100 per cent for telephone, cellphone, water and electricity allowances.

Most sections of society voiced their objection to all this; they rejected the proposed increments on grounds that the timing was not right since late president Levy Mwanawasa was in hospital at the time. They wondered why the rush. There was also an observation that much as the constitutional office holders and senior government officials may deserve an increment, the margins were too big. They argued that one could not compare a 15 per cent salary increment of ministers to an ordinary civil servant’s because ministers have free accommodation, transport and other allowances - more so for those who are parliamentarians. On the other hand, the civil servants have to pay for rentals, food, school children’s fees and transport to work from the same 15 per cent salary increment.

Nonetheless, the three Bills sailed through Parliament and were ready for Presidential assent. Then Vice-President Rupiah Banda, during his presidential election campaign launch, decided to send them back to Parliament because the country had insufficient resources.

Last week, the three amended emolument Bills passed through Parliament and are again ready for presidential assent. First, the responsibility allowance, which was introduced in the initial bills was scrapped while the utility and special allowances were reduced. The salary remained unchanged at 15 per cent.

While one may appreciate the reduction in the allowances, it is difficult to accept the government’s reaction to people that are expressing their views on the matter.

No one is saying that our politicians should not be paid appropriate salaries. Senior government officials and all constitutional office holders deserve to be appropriately remunerated by the people they serve. But then again, we are living in a country where 70 per cent of the people live below the poverty datum line, they are poor - they are said to live on less than a dollar per day. We are living in a country where some people can hardly afford one meal a day and in some cases take turns to eat while others barely have a roof over their heads. So when a decision is made to increase politicians’ salaries, a lot of care should be exercised and issues should be explained in a sensitive and mature manner to the people, instead of the arrogance we are currently seeing towards the taxpayers. Politicians need to listen to taxpayers because they are the ones who foot their bills. When we talk of salary increments for constitutional office holders and senior government officials, we are talking about monies which will be deducted from people’s hard-earned salaries - very few people in the formal sector for that matter. Salaries and allowances of our politicians are not paid from money from donors, it’s from our people’s taxes.

It should also be noted that the margin of tax that is paid by Zambians in urban areas and those in rural areas - who are said to have voted for the ruling party - varies. The great majority of our taxpayers did not vote for Rupiah. So caution should be exercised when dealing with such sensitive matters even if the increment, or is it a reduction as they would want us to call it, is K100.

Nelson Mandela once observed: “We have high salaries and we are living in luxury: that destroys your capacity to speak in a forthright manner and tell people to tighten their belts.” The next time people down their tools for salary increments, and looking at the many problems that need attention in our country, how will our politicians ask the people to tighten their belts? How will they urge them to go back to work?

Fidel Castro, as Cuban president, had disclosed in an interview in 2006: “My salary at the exchange rate of twenty five pesos per dollar is thirty dollars ($30) a month. But I’m not dying of hunger. I pay the Party dues, this, that, the other, a percentage, since the very first, for rent, I think we are paying 10 per cent... I help out an aunt of mine on my mother’s side, one of whose sons died in the war, back before we had retirement [pensions] because the rebel army wasn’t paid for like six months... I can say that a formula has been applied: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. And so my needs, my personal needs are really very few, and I have never had an increase in salary. I will have the glory of doing without a penny of convertible currency. I have been offered millions to write memoirs and books, I have never done it, I have always said, ‘if I do it, it’s for schools.’” Although this might seem as an extreme example, this is one example of selfless leadership. A leader whose only interest is to serve the masses regardless of the benefits.

There is need for politicians to always understand that theirs is to serve the people and their job has no specific qualifications. They need to be accountable to the people who are their employers and more so pay attention when their employers speak. Where problems are identified, they should be seen to deal with them and dialogue with the electorate so that they are informed.

In Zambia, politicians just sit and decide on their perks. When these proposed increments are taken to Parliament, they are not even debated because Parliament cannot debate itself. The fact that these employees determine their own salaries should be cause for humility before the taxpayers. In South Africa, salaries for constitutional office holders and politicians are recommended by the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers. This constitutional Commission, which is in the Presidency department, was formed in 1985 and it draws its mandate from an Act of Parliament, which was enacted to devise a framework for determining salaries, allowances and benefits, or the upper limits thereof, as the case may be, of public office bearers. This setup is good because these people that recommend salary increments for politicians are not interested parties.

It is also important to be clear on issues especially when comparisons are made with other countries. For instance, one cannot say Zambian politicians need a pay rise because they are poorly paid if you compare with those in countries like Kenya and South Africa. We also need to bear in mind the size of the economy in these countries compared to Zambia. For instance, Kenya has one of the largest and developed capitalist economies in Africa and it cannot be compared to Zambia; consequently, politicians in these countries cannot get the same salary.

We understand that our leaders need to be well remunerated but may they decide on their perks and communicate to the people in an honest manner. There is absolutely no need to accuse taxpayers of being petty and political when they talk about prudent use of their money. There is no need to be arrogant on straightforward issues or to accuse people that speak out of having an agenda against the government. There is no need to even suggest that politicians need a pat on their backs since they have ‘drastically’ reduced their salaries and allowances. That same little or minimal increment can eradicate so many ills in this poverty-stricken country where people are going without food in some parts of the country. And moreover, an employee shouldn’t be seen to be far more well-off than his employers.

Instead of being dismissive, our politicians should be sensitive in the way they deal with their people, their taxpayers, their real employers.

There is serious need for our politicians to learn to respect our country’s taxpayers, the people whose money they are enjoying.