Zimpapers Logo

Minister Chinamasa

Lloyd Gumbo Mr Speaker, Sir
By virtue of being representatives of the people, Members of Parliament are best placed to know the country’s needs, something that makes their debate relevant in making sure the financial plan is in sync with the country’s priorities.
Chapter 17, Section 299 of the constitution on parliamentary oversight of state revenues and expenditure states that the legislature must monitor and oversee expenditure by the state and all commissions, institutions and agencies of government at every level from ministries to local authorities.

This, the constitution says, they do to ensure that all revenue is accounted for, all expenditure properly incurred and limits and conditions on appropriations observed.

Parliamentary Standing Order 159 on parliamentary committees states that the committees shall, among other things “Consider or deal with an appropriation or money bill or any aspect of an appropriation or money bill referred to it by these Standing Orders or by or under resolution of this House; and monitor, investigate, enquire into and make recommendations relating to any aspect of the legislative programme, budget, policy or any other matter it may consider relevant to the government department falling within the category of affairs assigned to it, and may for that purpose consult and liaise with such department.”

These provisions show that legislators are constitutionally mandated to scrutinise government expenditure plans throughout the budget processes from inputting to it, to monitoring how it is being implemented after it has been passed.

Thematic and portfolio committees of parliament are specifically created to monitor the executive to ensure national resources are efficiently used.

It is at a time like this that they have to prove that they are not lame ducks who just pass something into law, especially the national budget, without giving it serious consideration.

For that reason, debating a budget requires meticulous understanding of the issues at hand, something that makes next week’s post-budget analysis and committee considerations best platforms for legislators to understand issues that they must raise when debate resumes from January 21.

Since some legislators may not be technically competent on budget issues, it is therefore important that they take next week’s meetings seriously.

After all, it should not be too difficult for them since they made some proposals to the same before it was presented. All they have to do is to compare their proposals and what Minister Chinamasa presented.

Legislators will use portfolio and thematic committees to check with ministries that they shadow on their submissions about the Vote allocations.

This will guide them when they debate the proposed budget in Parliament in the hope of influencing  Treasury to take on board some of their recommendations.

What makes this year’s budget debate more interesting is the fact that it comes at a time when there is Zanu-PF two-thirds majority in both Houses compared to the hung parliament era where consensus among the parties represented in parliament (Zanu-PF, MDC-T and MDC) was necessary to pass the budget.

As a result there was collective ownership of the expenditure plans.
But this year’s debate is different because whatever Zanu-PF, by virtue of being the ruling party with two-thirds majority say, will carry the day.

That is where the litmus test for the revolutionary party comes in as a result of the whipping system that has been adopted by almost all the parties in several jurisdictions.

Because of this system, parties usually dictate to their representatives the line of debating on whatever topic is brought before the House.
But sometimes they do not do it. Legislators just do it on their own because of polarisation.

There are possibilities that this can even happen with the national budget if the predictable premature immediate response after Minister Chinamasa’s presentation from the Zanu-PF legislators giving thumbs up to the budget without looking at the Votes allocations to ministries that they shadow are anything to go-by. But the problem with abusing whipping system when you have a required majority to pass the budget is that whatever happens especially when it fails to perform, the buck stops with the ruling party.

It is therefore important that party legislators are allowed to contribute to the proposed national budget without being influenced by other interests especially on areas to do with Votes allocations to ministries that they shadow.

I do not think there is any ruling party legislator who would come up with proposals that are bent on sabotaging the Government.
If anything, legislators want to raise issues that the Minister of Finance may have overlooked yet have far-reaching positive implications on the performance of Government.

There is however no excuse for a party legislator to divert or contradict the ideological philosophies or principles of the ruling party.
For instance, one would expect Zanu-PF legislators to confine their debate to issues to do with the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation.

The ruling party believes in, among other things, value addition and beneficiation, something Minister Chinamasa provided for in the budget proposal.

It would therefore be naïve for any party legislator to contradict that position.

Feeback: [email protected]