‘Malawi MPs should not be condemned’

Malawi President Joyce Banda has said her government will not bow down to the calls by members of Parliament (MPs) to get their K10 million (about $27 777) fuel allowances backdated to 2009.  MPs last week even boycotted debate because of this. Ephraim Nyondo caught up with Joseph Chunga, president of Political Science Association of Malawi (Psam) to seek how best government should go about this.

What was your immediate reaction to news that MPs last week boycotted debate over fuel allowances?

I immediately thought we have a lot of work to put in place a functioning governing system. For me, it is part of a broad problem of a society that has no working systems and everything is haphazard.

Do you think MPs are justified in this call?

I understand some have condemned the MPs’ demand as selfish, but I do not share these sentiments. The issue here is not that the MPs are demanding any rise to their allowance. They are claiming what they were supposed to have received from 2009. As long as it is part of their conditions of service, I find it unfair to condemn them for demanding their due entitlement. The fact that the allowances have accumulated is not their problem; it is because the Executive chose not to honour it on time.

Whether it was proper to increase the allowances in 2009 is another question which is more about the systems in place to determine the benefits of these MPs. If there be any criticisms, the focus should be on such systems and, therefore, aim at changing the mechanisms not demonising the MPs.

Some analysts argued that the call is being made at a wrong time because government is treading through tough economic times. Others argue that the MPs want the money to strategise for their 2014 campaign. How do you assess these arguments?

We expect every Malawian to share in the hardship and more so our leaders. As a goodwill gesture, MPs needed to consider this and possibly forgo their demands.

However, my view is that it is up to individual MPs to decide what to do with their benefits. We cannot force them to donate their allowances or salaries to government because we are in tough economic times. Why are we not forcing Cabinet ministers, judges and other public officials to do that?  Withholding what is due to them is tantamount to forcing them to donate. I suppose none of us would smile at our employer if he or she woke up one day and said they had unilaterally decided to withdraw part of our salary or benefit because of economic hardships.

Most importantly, my argument is that if we allow the Executive to choose which benefits of the National Assembly or indeed, any other arm of government such as the Judiciary, to honour, we set a bad precedence. We would not be surprised to find a president who decides not to honour Parliament’s budget to paralyse it in the name of economic crisis. It is a serious threat to a functional democracy.

Because of these considerations, I think it is only fair that the MPs get what is due to them.

How best would government and MPs go about this situation so it benefits the people of Malawi?

The least I would expect is antagonism. The megaphone diplomacy approach (shouting at each other in the media) taken so far will not help matters. The Executive should appeal to the MPs to consider the economic situation and possibly forfeit or accept to get less than what is due to them. After all, as I have already argued, the allowances in question belong to the MPs and should have been paid a long time back. Confrontation will not work.

I must, however, add that such an appeal may alter noise if the Executive continues to be extravagant in its own business. No need to say it is total hypocrisy to condemn the MPs when the President and her Cabinet are always on the road for very trivial business.

Any additional comment?

The situation at hand points to a serious systemic problem concerning the financial position of the National Assembly in relation to the Executive. This was also the case that led to the strike in the Judiciary. It calls us to relook at how benefits of MPs should be decided and implemented. Are the mechanisms functioning and reflective of objective economic realities of the country? It also begs a question on the budgetary independence of the National Assembly. We need to direct our energies to these systems and processes for long-term solutions.