adminBut has anyone ever questioned the system and the decisive factor or factors that is or are used to elect these legislators into office? If there was a criterion used to choose who becomes an MP and who doesn’t, would there be a better crop of representatives in the august House? Would it improve service delivery on the ground and debate in Parliament?
But then again, by whose standards do we determine whether or not an individual is worth being an MP or not?
If my standards were to be used, it would be a pre-requisite for an individual who wishes to become an MP to have a prescribed minimum educational qualification and also that they should possess and declare all their property before they assume duties as legislators.
I believe there is a growing need for a more unbending criterion by which anyone who wishes to be an MP should first meet before they contest in an election. This, I think would go a long way in eliminating many of the problems that constituents all over the country have been facing.
Problems include the lack of development in their areas because their MPs fail to lobby for them, use allocated funds well and even embarrassment from representatives that lack decorum.
Having such pre-requisites could minimise greed, improve delivery on the ground and improve debate in Parliament.
It is a cause for concern whether or not some of our MPs can comprehend what is said in Parliament and whether the issues they bring to the table are worth debating. It is also of concern whether or not our MPs can handle public funds.
There have been media reports about MPs that abused the $50 000 Constituency Development Fund (CDF) allocated in the 2009/10 fiscal budget and was meant to spearhead development in the various constituencies around the country.
At some point, the legislators that were found wanting were arrested and later released because there is no law that could be used to prosecute them.
While some of these MPs diverted the funds for personal use, others simply failed to account for the money.
Other reports have been of MPs demanding more in sitting allowances, residential stands in plush suburbs in Harare and money to buy themselves vehicles. Some MPs have been on a self-enrichment spree instead of focusing on why they hold the title “MP”.
While some MPs have not necessarily taken that route, others have been quoted saying some of the most absurd statements that leave one wondering whether the sentiment was well thought out before it proceeded out of the mouth.
Bulawayo East legislator Thabitha Khumalo (MDC-T) for example was quoted recently saying married women should keep their husbands’ girlfriends close in order to help curb the spread of infectious viruses such as HIV when in actual fact this only promotes infidelity and polygamy, which contribute to the increase in the spread of the deadly virus.
She has also been at the forefront in the campaign to legalise prostitution. Although the practice is rampant, it is uncultural and against our values as a country. Sentiments like these make the electorate question the type of leaders they have.
Having said that, it is common knowledge that the thought processes of an educated person and those of an uneducated one are very different. This point is debatable but I believe an educated person’s analysis, conclusions and the actions they decide to take after their conclusions are different from those of a person who is not educated. People with a decent level of education tend to think more long-term and they are more rational unlike uneducated people who usually act on impulse.
MPs should have a wide range of general knowledge in addition to the education they have received. This would be very helpful when debating motions in Parliament because an issue may come up and be debated in Parliament and because that MP is not widely read or knowledgeable, the debate may end before they can contribute anything because they do not understand the topic thereby short-changing the electorate.
Unlike educated individuals who are often more inquisitive especially when they do not understand something, those that have not received an education tend to be defensive and end up forcing their ideas on their constituents or their colleagues.
Although largely theoretical, electing an individual based on their level of education and property can potentially minimise greed and incompetence from MPs.
If we look for instance at the legislators that were accused of abusing the CDF, most of them were not “moneyed” people that pounced on the opportunity to enrich themselves because the money was at their disposal.
And because they were not schooled, their stealing was not clever. Assuming that those who got away with it managed to forge receipts and managed to “stage” development in their constituencies, those that were not so clever did not get away with it.
Although it could be considered as being somewhat discriminatory and could create classes, making MPs declare their property before assuming their duties could make it easy to identify who would have been stealing from the Government or enriching themselves corruptly and who would not be.
For example, if someone is elected into office and declares their three goats but halfway down the term now owns 100 goats, would it not be interesting to find out where the 97 came from? It would make an interesting probe!
An MP is a representative of voters to a parliament. What this entails is that they should consult the electorate on issues regarding development, welfare and any other challenges facing their respective constituencies and then take these up with Government.
MPs can directly engage the relevant Government ministers or raise the issues in Parliament during debates. The people entrusted with this responsibility should be people that are capable intellectually.
Meanwhile, absconding from Parliament like what some MPs have been doing due to what is believed by many to be because of the debilitating poverty and destitution that is afflicting them could be a thing of the past if MPs that are able to cater for some of their expenses themselves are elected into office.
This comes against the backdrop that some of these lawmakers are unable to buy themselves a single meal in the hotels they would have been booked during parliamentary sessions.
Providing service to the people should be a priority rather than whining about “needs” and “wants”.
Furthermore, constituents should play a watchdog role and not just rush into voting politicians into office after they are wooed by their campaigns but should consider the level of education that a politician has, whether or not they would be able to represent them adequately as well as look at their “market value”.
Online Reporter