NOT many people are going to be surprised that members of Parliament willput up complaints that this and that sector are underfunded, for the governmentand MPs themselves realize that there is a severe limit to meet expectations,or immediate needs.
Complaining is part of the function of representation, to call to order thelegislature to take note of the situation in this or that area, in order to seewhat can be done, in the circumstances. In that case raising awareness of theHouse in relation to a specific sector or sub-sector is alright; raising a ‘red flag’is another.
While there has definitely been intense debate or questioning by MPs concerningbudgetary funding for each sector whose estimates have been presented in the House,as well as in routine question and answer sessions, some situations raise issueseither about responsibility or accountability of the legislature itself.
It is when there is an effort to massively or substantially increase funding fornearly each sector they discuss, or put differently, in raising red flags in twoor more occasions. This somewhat galls observers, as red flags are only exceptionallyright.
For instance, MPs more or less compelled the government to redesign water sectorfinancing, by putting up an additional toll on fossil fuel taxation or somethingof the sort, though its proper treatment or result awaits the proper GovernmentBudget that still has a while before it is tabled in the House.
There were also some bitter complaints on funding of science labs in schools,and one MP said it will take 79 years for the task to be completed, if each yearless than 2,000 lab rooms will be built in a demand for more than 150,000 lab rooms.It was a salutary observation.
There are two related aspects to the issue, one being the necessity to order a changein budgetary priorities if there is sufficiently intense need that can unite theHouse about the matter, but when such a sector has been identified, that shouldmore or less suffice for the budgeting session as a whole.
The trouble is that a section of MPs are raising similar demands for other sectors,for instance a report that a ‘red flag’ was being raised about defence expenditureof all sectors! Usually political activism seeks cutting of defence procurement forsocial services, not the reverse.
While the ink had not dried on that demand, there were reports of MPs walking out onFinance Minister Dr Philip Mpango simply in answering questions, before he even haspresented the proper Government Budget.
No one can say that budgeting and financing are impeccable but MPs mustfocus their demands. It’s just as much.
For one thing, since questions in the House aren’t drawn up by political partycaucuses but individual MPs, it can logically be projected that each MP has somepriorities in mind, as to what counts most in national needs, or public harmony.
There is even a chance that specific sectors seek out those whom they are familiarwith to put up strenuous demands, so that the House risks being divided if thosedemands aren’t met, this especially if there are several MPs tasked with that function.
In the wake of their being removed from boards of parastatal companies, MPs are likely to be available for someagency functions, to represent sectors in their budget demands. That is both representation and opportunism. It’spart of life.
_0.jpg?itok=QU87XW8D){kind=tracking}
.jpeg?itok=vCj6bCRe)
