|
One party democracy and implementing the JK initiative
2008-02-16 09:06:58
By Perege Gumbo
Ideas about separating business from politics have occupied the national media as nothing could ever do, save evidently for the proceeds of the Richmond Development Co. report and its parliamentary presentation.
Surprisingly, it now seems that President Jakaya Kikwete only stepped in front as the first reader of the report, putting forward an aspect of its recommendations as new thinking on his part.
That augurs quite well with `new zeal` in learning what the public wants - i.e. about his own network.
So the question is now open as to who really suggested returning to a format nearly like the Leadership Code of the Arusha Declaration, which is what is meant by `tightening` the 1995 public service code of conduct?
The position of the parliamentary select committee`s report, and of JK`s remarks thereof, was broad enough, that is, the need for a neat separation between business and politics.
Two contrasting views are gathering around the issue, and it`s unclear if they might agree about it.
The more enthusiastic section of this initiative belong to a traditionalist interpretation, that which comes down to the scorning of wealth as the vocation of a ``leader,`` more or less in its original sense.
If someone is employed in the government or public sector he or she should not have business interests, for this will now bring about a ``conflict of interest.``
It is rather a far cry from the old, hallowed notion of \"exploitation`` and the `proximity of leaders to those they lead;`` the two can`t be bridged.
A smaller group that comprises those in the corridors of power, from the legislature and presumably in the government and among professional groups, see the issue differently.
They take the question to represent an ethic of office in much the same way as they do in advanced capitalist countries, where the issue is less interest but preoccupation.
One cannot for instance remain a company managing director and a constituency MP.
In the latter case it would follow that he surrenders the managerial post in preference to a lesser involvement, like remaining company chairman, which means he is just available for periodic meetings, not running the show.
This isn`t obviously what the radicals have in mind, for there is as much interest in the success of the firm whether one is chairman of the board of directors or managing director.
The radicals thus advocate a clearly funny idea - leaving the business to the Administrator General....!
Handing a business to this registrar of births and deaths is like signing one`s own death warrant, for how could a people`s leader also become involved in the dirty game of making money, or so we are being told, and this is the first decade of the 21st century.
Surprisingly as well, it will be hard to find anyone either in the legislature or in the government with absolutely no links with a ``capitalist`` enterprise - that is, any sort of activity that needs start up capital.
It is as if all we have been saying about `entrepreneurship` was merely leading to sin, to forget our values!
That is why, from whatever angle one looks at the issue, the remarks by the President, if taken as a matter of principle, rather than as a specific reaction to the Richmond report, would be considered untenable.
But in a situation where the President has not just Richmond but also the Bank of Tanzania scam to worry about, and institutions like PCCB, wounded in their effort to present Richmond as ``business as usual`` need something to shore up their image, a joke about ``conflict of interest` could become a preoccupation.
Reason: tapping into fresh popularity of war on the rich!
As a matter of fact, only the first view of `conflict of interest` can be consonant with modernisation, that one can no longer manage a company and be an MP, thus surrender such work to others.
Indeed at times even a regular involvement in the board of directors of a company that may have remote dealings with the government would be faulty, though there is no denying that links continue.
How could one cut links between large firms from which presidential advisers come, i.e. from the White House?
What was especially faulty about the President`s remarks is the idea that parliamentary representation is inconsistent with being an owner of a business, as then one shall be protecting one`s interests.
This was a complete misrepresentation of democracy, since Parliament is really the arena where all interests are brought into play, since each has a right to exist (as part of national economy and society) but none should cause injury to others.
Thus representation of the various sectors is the raison d`etre of the legislature, but radical one party people think otherwise.
Incidentally, what they attribute to Parliament as a sphere of conflict of interests when MPs run business is in actual fact the fundamental weakness of undemocratic government.
It isn`t in the legislature that the really evil decisions that hurt millions of people are made but in the government, for instance after a ministerial director signs something he knows the permanent secretary won`t have a problem with the Minister or the President.
Such a decision cannot be reversed, for it will then have acquired the holiness of a `government decision` even if the fellow pocketed 10m/- to arrive at the decision, seen as a `routine discretion.`
While the President worries about personal interests of parliamentary debate contributions in discussing bills or motions, the hidden scandal is that no one ever discusses why directors or permanent secretaries make this or that decision.
And coming to think of it, secrecy, siri-kali, tied up with the very idea of government, is what prompts representation in the first place, so that the `infinite wisdom` of the executive is properly put to checks by representatives of the people - in their various sectors.
If those who run business, who know the sectors, aren`t there, who will be?
That is why at the bottom of it all, there is something like a return to the one party state that is being avidly suggested, that the newly arising groups of traders, investors, should not question what the bureaucracy decides in ministries.
The best way to do that is to stuff Parliament with ex-secondary school teachers and ``graduates`` of this or that military academy who then become party leaders, then contest for Parliament.
With such a legislature, no one could really say what is right or is wrong.
|
