Maravi

(SUNDAY MAIL ZW) CDF for MPs in its current form must be abolished

CDF for MPs in its current form must be abolished
Saturday, 24 March 2012 20:42
Joyce Tangadzani Shumba

The Constituency Development Fund (CDF), although a good idea, was always likely to face hurdles given the following factors:

* The CDF was to be implemented by policymakers who, by virtue of their function, should not have been part of the projects.

* There were no clearly defined project activity types with specific objectives. For example, was this CDF to be used to implement income-generating projects or provide some social benefits to the constituency?

* This CDF, in its current form, can be viewed from the point of promoting a dependency syndrome for both the MPs and their constituencies.

My first point relates to the fact that parliamentarians are supposed to be policymakers and not implementers. From what we are reading and hearing, the CDF money was deposited into a bank account controlled by the relevant MP. The fact that MPs are directly accountable for the money meant that they were the persons responsible for disbursement and implementation of the project. Having a committee to assist the MP does not matter, the MP was the accounting officer.

In our parliamentary democracy, the Executive through the President, Prime Minister and Cabinet are the implementers and the executive actions are checked by Parliament.
Now the MPs themselves became responsible and had to account to the Executive, which was opposite to the standard or normal conditions. This was the first error in the implementation of this programme. There are suggestions that implementation should have been done through local authorities who would have to account to the MPs and then to Parliament.

In the case of rural areas, the CDF would have been deposited into the account of the relevant rural district council. The rural district council would perform the administrative tasks, thus sparing the MPs the hassle of keeping all necessary expenditure vouchers.
However, the MP and his/her committee would still have to implement the project but through the RDC.

Thus in all cases, actual expenditure would still have been done and authorised by the MP, which again is implementation. This option again could not absolve the MP from performing the implementation function. We also forget that our current set of local authorities is very weak to say the least and accounting for such funds would not have been easy.

If local authorities like town councils were to fully implement and report to respective MPs, this would be ideal since local councils would be implementers and MPs would remain with their core function to set policies and monitor implementation. However, most local authorities cannot supply basic services, citing a lack of resources, but that is just an excuse. Look at large towns like Harare, Bulawayo, Chitungwiza, they have a constant revenue stream and still they cannot deliver on basic services like sanitation and water. What more if you are to add more activities like MPs’ CDF? Thus our Government has rushed to give this CDF money to the MPs without having a clear and defined plan. There were also no well-defined parameters for MPs to use as a guide. As a result, MPs and their committees decided to spend on anything they thought would be good for their constituencies. For example, if an MP bought a generator to be used by the students at a school in the constituency and such generator was kept at the MP’s house if not in use, could this be defined as good use of the public funds when the same school had no toilet or good ablution blocks? So, there were bound to be grey areas in the use of the CDF and I would be surprised if more than 50 percent of the total budget was actually used for the common good.

MPs were supposed to develop an income-generating project to assist the community or constituency to have sustainable economic activities. For example, in rural districts, a project of fresh water fish farming would be much more meaningful than, say, building a clinic. This should be the work of local authorities.
In towns, a project on urban gardening would surely be the most preferred since it would enhance economic activity in the poor suburbs and assist families to fend for themselves. These are just examples and a lot more income-generating activities could be identified and implemented. The next critical aspect is the promotion of the dependency syndrome which could be brought about through the implementation of the CDF programme.

The fact that the CDF is coming from Government coffers helps to give the impression that its free money for everyone.
The constituency which receives did nothing to earn that money. It is wrong in economic terms to pay money without expecting an economic return. The end result is that, whatever project is done, there will be no incentive to protect and keep it for future generations.

If, for example, a school is built without the community’s contribution, then the chances of future neglect with no maintenance will be high. The idea should not be to just give but to let the MP and the community work or make a monetary contribution to the project to ensure it is sustainable in future.
Surely Government has very thin resources. Why now try to spread this money thinly with little expected output? There are more pressing matters for the country right now than giving MPs some money, most of which will be abused. Roads and power infrastructure are in a poor state; why not put this $10 million-plus into these national projects? If

Government wants to help, then it must disburse the CDF as loans that can be used by the constituency to develop income-generating activities. The income earned from the project will then be put into a CDF revolving fund available to all constituencies and MPs. This approach ensures that our little resources are used to maximum benefit.

* Joyce Tangadzani Shumba can be contacted on email: tangashumba@gmail.com

Labels: CONSTITUENCY DEVELOPMENT FUND, MDC CORRUPTION

posted by MrK @ 4:33 PM