Maravi

NCC circus

NCC circus
Written by Editor

IT is extremely important that those who are trying to write a constitution for us rise above personal and other narrow or petty interests. Obligations to the people of Zambia should take precedence over loyalty or commitment to any individual. At no time and in no circumstances should those who are trying to give us a constitution place their personal interests first; they should subordinate themselves to the interest of the nation and the masses of our people.

They should proceed on all issues from the interests of the people and not from one's self interests or from the interests of a small group and to identify their responsibilities with the people at all times.

It is unsettling to learn that the Legislative Committee of the National Constitutional Conference (NCC) yesterday adopted a proposal that members of parliament expelled from their political parties should not lose their seats in the House.

The Legislative Committee resolved that parliamentarians expelled by their parties should instead remain in the House as independent members of parliament.

The committee members argued that the move would help to protect members of parliament from being victimised by political parties and that it will also reduce on unnecessary by-elections.

The issue of allowing members of parliament who get elected on the basis of their party affiliation to become independent when they choose to is not in conformity with multiparty politics. People who go to Parliament on a particular party ticket use not only the party's resources - that is money and party cadres' support - but also the prestige of their party. They cannot walk out of that marriage and still retain all the benefits that they got as a result of that association.

If they do not want to continue in the party, they should go back to the people and seek a fresh mandate as independents. Allowing parliamentarians that have been expelled from their parties to stay in Parliament as independents will not only undermine the much-needed party discipline in our country but it will also cause a lot of confusion in the House itself.

Yes, by-elections are costly and should be avoided as far as possible. And unnecessary expulsions from political parties should also be avoided. But in a multiparty political system, political parties should have a say on those who represent them either in Parliament, local government or even in State House. They should be able to recall their representatives if they are not performing to their standards.

We think there is something to learn from the South African constitution setup where any representative of a political party, at any level, can be recalled by the party and replaced by another. We saw the recall by the African National Congress (ANC) of Thabo Mbeki as President and his subsequent replacement. It was sad to see Mbeki leave the presidency in that manner, but that act demonstrates a strong commitment by the South African people to multiparty democracy and not to individual or unilateral democracy - if there is such a thing.

The reasons advanced for the adoption of the proposal to allow members of parliament expelled by political parties to remain in the House as independents do not hold water. To some extent, these reasons go to show how some of our people sitting on the NCC are putting their interests before those of the masses. Our country can avoid unnecessary by-elections without weakening our political parties or causing confusion in Parliament. We should actually consider removing all by-elections from our constitution by simply replacing those who are expelled or those who die by allowing the party that won the local government seat or parliamentary seat or indeed even the presidency to simply appoint one of their numbers to take over.

If this was the case it wouldn't have cost the nation so much money or so much tension to replace Levy Mwanawasa following his death. The MMD would have simply, through their own party constitution or other democratic procedures, appointed someone to replace Levy and finish off his term of office. Actually the MMD wanted to do that but it was unconstitutional and as such it was against the law. Everything should be done according to the law, according to what the constitution stipulates.

Therefore, we think that the idea of allowing expelled parliamentarians to remain in the House is not in tandem with the country's democratic principles and should not be encouraged.

The proposal by NCC Executive Committee member Dr Swebby Macha that a former president who has been convicted of a criminal offence should not be entitled to his gratuity deserves serious consideration and reflection. Dr Macha says there is need to protect the integrity of the Office of the President and that a former head of state convicted of a crime should be given pension but not gratuity. This submission was however met with opposition from other members of the committee who felt that the president, despite having been convicted of a crime, deserves his gratuity because he worked for it and that stripping one's immunity is enough punishment.

We would like to remind the people sitting on the NCC that every word, every act and every decision of theirs must conform to the people's interests. Moreover, this is what democracy itself entails or calls for. For us democracy means that governments are closely linked to the people, arise from the people, have the support of the people and devote themselves entirely to working and struggling for the people and the people's interests.

This being the case, how can a former president who robbed the people or who committed other crimes against the people be rewarded by the same people? How can the same people reward someone who has stolen from them with huge benefits? Even in ordinary employment, one who steals or commits crimes against his employer forfeits his benefits. It is difficult for us to understand why a president who does nothing but rob his people, cheat his people, abuse his people should be given benefits arising from the sweat and toil of these same people he has robbed, cheated and abused?

We know that some of those who are advocating that a president who has committed crimes, who has stolen public funds should not lose his benefits are sympathisers of Frederick Chiluba and have him in sight when talking about this issue. Some of these people sitting on the NCC should remember that they are not being paid huge allowances to go and defend the pension of thieves. They are being paid these allowances to go and advance the interests of the majority of our people who today live in abject poverty. People sitting on the NCC are not there as lobbyists for certain interests of certain powerful individuals or groups.

This issue doesn't need much disquisition. Those who steal from their employers, from their jobs can't be treated in the same way or be open to the same benefits as those who are innocent and who have discharged their duties with sufficient honour and integrity.

There is need for people sitting on the NCC to understand the enormity of their task and the need for them to come up with a people-driven constitution. The document they are working on is not for any one political party or individual. The constitution is a document for the people of Zambia, it is a document that will guide the way we govern ourselves and hence should reflect the will of the people and ultimately stand the test of time. We should not encourage a situation where a constitution is tailored for certain interests or individuals and then a few years from now we constitute another Constitution Review Commission (CRC) and NCC. For once, let us have a good document that will guarantee fundamental basic human rights and freedoms.

Our democracy will only grow when political parties and the law of the land - the constitution - are decided upon with equal regard to the interests of all people in our country.

Labels: BY-ELECTIONS, CONSTITUTION, NCC

posted by MrK @ 7:18 AM