The Electoral Commission suspended parliamentary campaigns from December 15 to 23. This was to allow Members of Parliament return to the House to discuss the 2016/17 national budget.
The Public Finance Management Act, which was passed in February, demands that the government presents the budget to Parliament by December, to start the process that would lead to its approval by May.
Indeed the budget was submitted to Parliament this month meaning the Executive had fulfilled its legal mandate hence passing on the ball to the Legislature.
With the ball in her court, the Speaker of Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga needed to pass it back. She wrote to the EC requesting them to suspend parliamentary campaigns so as to allow her team return to the House and start the budget approval process. Her request was well premised.
It’s campaign time. It’s hectic. The MPs’ focus is on persuading voters. Besides, if the campaigns were not suspended, the opponents would have gained unfair advantage over sitting MPs by continuing with campaigns when the MPs are busy in the House.
To EC’s credit, they agreed with the prayers of the Speaker and suspended campaigns. Mind you, EC is independent and could have rejected the request. But because the reason for the suspension was in public interest, the EC agreed with the Speaker. That was an exhibition of leniency, proper use of discretion and sound judgement on the part of the EC. Government work must continue in spite of the electioneering.
However, media reports showed that some aspirants for parliamentary seats took issue with the suspension and vowed to continue with campaigns. This is unfortunate. My response is twofold.
First to the aspirants who are not sitting MPs. Their refusal to adhere to the EC’s directive exhibits that their idea of leadership could be wrong. If it’s wrong, it’s highly likely that they will perpetuate such wrong perception of leadership if they get elected to Parliament. And that is undesirable for the country.
Secondly by refusing to obey the EC directive, the aspirants would be undermining their own credibility as better alternatives to the incumbent MPs. They would appear distanced from the value of fair play. They would be unpatriotic.
They ought to have understood that the suspension of campaigns was to allow Parliament take a major decision for the country. Allocation of resources is an exercise which is among the top if not the highest in national leadership obligations. Therefore; if your opponent is being called to perform such a duty and you don’t understand its significance, then it dilutes the whole notion of political leadership and raises questions as to what motivates one to seek public office.
Winning at all costs is a self-serving principle which does not treasure common good. Servant leadership is logical.
To the incumbent legislators; refusal to obey the suspension of campaigns automatically implies undermining the authority of the Speaker and the EC. It’s not a good leadership quality to exhibit.
I am mindful of the fact that if one is not in Parliament attending plenary or committee work, it does not automatically mean that they are not doing parliamentary work.
Some legislators may be out of Parliament lobbying for their constituencies or representing Parliament out of the country. Others could be accompanying the President on a visit to their constituencies or even abroad. Those are all legitimate reasons for not attending Parliament.
However, those responsibilities are not core. The core business takes priority and allocation of resources is core in Parliament work. If it so happens, that one is legitimately unable to attend Parliament, it should be to the knowledge and permission of the Speaker. It’s unlikely that the Speaker will permit abstentions that undermine plenary work.
To the party MPs, failure to attend to the House implies that you are denying your party meaningful operation in a powerful political domain called Parliament. It could actually imply an unconscious sabotage of your own party interests.
The general lessons for us to share include the fact that we need to build national ethos that guide our political behaviour.
It’s treasonable to treat the exercise of budget allocation casually. Anyone who does that involuntarily works to create a deadlock of democracy. It amounts to sabotage of the economy which makes the state vulnerable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment