19th October 2013
A disorderly clamour has been heard for the past
week concerning auditing books of the various political parties with
representation in the National Assembly, thus qualifying for a subsidy
from the government that is proportional to their representation.
At the centre of the storm has been the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly, Zitto Zuberi Kabwe (Kigoma North -- CHADEMA) ,who has gone out of his way to require a stopping of delivery of subsidy to the parties until their accounts are properly audited – before the committee. That is, to say the least, to go a wee bit too far in relation to the mandate of the committee and the subsidy itself.
There is a maxim that the Kigoma North MP is messing up, knowingly or otherwise, that no one can be a judge in his own case, in which case the parliamentary committee cannot sit in judgment of accounts of political parties; meanwhile, they are responsible officials of those parties, or members thereof.
In relation to being responsible officials as in the case of the MP, they have a duty of collective responsibility in relation to those accounts, in which case the MP cannot isolate himself from his colleagues in the CHADEMA leadership and sit in judgment of their efforts, satisfactory or otherwise. Nor for that matter can he, as a responsible official of an opposition party, summon the secretariat of the ruling party to query on their accounts; it is the height of naive, dramatic posturing.
A crucial aspect of funding for political parties, or subsidies which the Kigoma North MP has not yet grasped is that they obtain the funds by right, on account of having parliamentary representation. In that case, the funds are also used by right, in relation to that the party leadership feels is helpful to advance their cause, and no one is in a better position to explain what that requires, and how to use those funds, than themselves.
If anyone tries to put in authoritative advice on that matter, and additionally, he is also a political leader with definite ambitions or responsibility, it is clear that his or her sentiments thereof will be underlined by that responsibility or ambition. That means the MP is not in a position to play honest broker in that regard, and no such broker is needed either.
In a sense, we aren’t saying that auditing of political parties’ accounts should be left to the Controller and Auditor General or to the Registrar of Political Parties but rather we have to stick to tradition, of ‘live and let live,’ because the funds are obtained by right, by virtue of having parliamentary representation. In law, each offence has a stipulated penalty, and the penalty for misusing party funds and causing disarray among the members and other supporters is to lose support, slip up and fail to retain parliamentary seats in the next general elections, or at a sharply reduced level.
That is the penalty that leaders of political parties face, at the court of the people, not before a select group of MPs, whose chairman has more than one reason to seek to peep inside the accounts of political parties.
For the sake of public probity, the Registrar or the CAG can for that matter, within the limits of the law, seek to know or otherwise satisfy themselves as to the manner in which the funds are used, perhaps less with respect to each project or payment but the regularity of internal controls, where the whole issue of periodic elections in political parties is paramount.
This is a moment of intense stock taking in a political party, permitting members to chastise leadership or the party chairman in particular, if things are going wrong, and this, by the nature of what is called politics, is by and large sufficient.
Seeking outward control is to mistake political parties for development projects, where leaders are only worried about public authorities, and the public is a passive force in that aspect.
So the PAC should examine accounts of the government and state firms, and let political parties autonomous as the law has designed it; the funds they receive are theirs by right, not by trust in order to accomplish a clear task.
At the centre of the storm has been the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly, Zitto Zuberi Kabwe (Kigoma North -- CHADEMA) ,who has gone out of his way to require a stopping of delivery of subsidy to the parties until their accounts are properly audited – before the committee. That is, to say the least, to go a wee bit too far in relation to the mandate of the committee and the subsidy itself.
There is a maxim that the Kigoma North MP is messing up, knowingly or otherwise, that no one can be a judge in his own case, in which case the parliamentary committee cannot sit in judgment of accounts of political parties; meanwhile, they are responsible officials of those parties, or members thereof.
In relation to being responsible officials as in the case of the MP, they have a duty of collective responsibility in relation to those accounts, in which case the MP cannot isolate himself from his colleagues in the CHADEMA leadership and sit in judgment of their efforts, satisfactory or otherwise. Nor for that matter can he, as a responsible official of an opposition party, summon the secretariat of the ruling party to query on their accounts; it is the height of naive, dramatic posturing.
A crucial aspect of funding for political parties, or subsidies which the Kigoma North MP has not yet grasped is that they obtain the funds by right, on account of having parliamentary representation. In that case, the funds are also used by right, in relation to that the party leadership feels is helpful to advance their cause, and no one is in a better position to explain what that requires, and how to use those funds, than themselves.
If anyone tries to put in authoritative advice on that matter, and additionally, he is also a political leader with definite ambitions or responsibility, it is clear that his or her sentiments thereof will be underlined by that responsibility or ambition. That means the MP is not in a position to play honest broker in that regard, and no such broker is needed either.
In a sense, we aren’t saying that auditing of political parties’ accounts should be left to the Controller and Auditor General or to the Registrar of Political Parties but rather we have to stick to tradition, of ‘live and let live,’ because the funds are obtained by right, by virtue of having parliamentary representation. In law, each offence has a stipulated penalty, and the penalty for misusing party funds and causing disarray among the members and other supporters is to lose support, slip up and fail to retain parliamentary seats in the next general elections, or at a sharply reduced level.
That is the penalty that leaders of political parties face, at the court of the people, not before a select group of MPs, whose chairman has more than one reason to seek to peep inside the accounts of political parties.
For the sake of public probity, the Registrar or the CAG can for that matter, within the limits of the law, seek to know or otherwise satisfy themselves as to the manner in which the funds are used, perhaps less with respect to each project or payment but the regularity of internal controls, where the whole issue of periodic elections in political parties is paramount.
This is a moment of intense stock taking in a political party, permitting members to chastise leadership or the party chairman in particular, if things are going wrong, and this, by the nature of what is called politics, is by and large sufficient.
Seeking outward control is to mistake political parties for development projects, where leaders are only worried about public authorities, and the public is a passive force in that aspect.
So the PAC should examine accounts of the government and state firms, and let political parties autonomous as the law has designed it; the funds they receive are theirs by right, not by trust in order to accomplish a clear task.
SOURCE:
THE GUARDIAN
