It’s time we turned spotlight on our actual expenditure

By Judy Thongori
[email protected]

Things are thick in government; in the last fortnight, we have been treated to various newspaper headlines on efforts to reduce expenditure. We have seen our leaders take pay cuts and a surge in the commitment to confront corruption. Legislators are busy with proposals on reduction of political seats.

The opposition is busy disagreeing with some of the above moves and branding the voluntary pay cuts populist stunts. But populist or not, the opposition does not deny that we are in a huge financial hole that we must dig ourselves out of.

I have personally been pleased that the conversation has begun because it was inevitable. And for me that marks a new beginning in Kenya; a beginning in which the need for financial accountability is driven by us, the Kenyans. As we consider how to reduce expenditure, we need to be careful not to take short-term measures that are not sustainable and which may cause more harm than good, in the long term. I am concerned especially about the proposal to reduce and or do away with the nominated seats. For women, and I am sure for the youth and persons living with disabilities too, even their current numbers in Parliament are not sufficient to ably represent their respective interests.

We must not forget the journey towards representation; it was long and harrowing and even then we are not yet there. Indeed women await the necessary constitutional amendment decreed by the Supreme Court to assist in the attainment of 2/3 ceiling in the representation of any one gender. Besides, representation is one of the anchors of stability and development in any nation. It is like the three arms of government – Judiciary, Parliament and Executive – that no nation can thrive without.

In a nutshell, there are essentials that a government just has to spend money on.

That said, it is still possible to reduce expenditure and achieve the best possible representation.

It is not just wastage in trips abroad and fleets of vehicles that must be managed. In my humble view, the greater accountability lies in demanding that the representatives do what they are elected or nominated for; we must   demand value for money from those that we pay to undertake public responsibilities.

In respect to Parliament, we must demand that our representatives are available either in the Senate or the National Assembly to take part in relevant business. How is it possible that with a bloated Parliament, we still have problems achieving quorum to undertake substantive debate on an issue? Shouldn’t the increase in numbers translate into an increase in the work done, the quality of debate and the wealth of information and experience available?

How is it possible that members debate Bills while they appear not to have sufficient content or background information? 

I cannot forget the night of Wednesday 19 March 2014 when debate on the marriage Bill stalled due to the fact that some MPs felt that they were too few to achieve proper debate in respect of such a crucial bill. In fact the Leader of Majority feared that if debate started then, there would only be two MPs left by the end of it. Seriously? Some of the members present also made comments that are very expensive to deal with. One MP said that if the Bill is passed, divorces would be given instantly. The other MP said that if the Bill is passed, one would get home and find that they are already divorced. Honestly?

I remember earlier in the year an MP saying of the Marriage Bill: “Mr Speaker, if this Bill is passed, even your property will be divided.” And yet the Marriage Bill does not at all deal with matrimonial property.

For me the above are instances of wastage of resources far beyond the wages; what is the cost of postponing the debate to another day in terms of time and actual expense? What is the cost of giving wrong information about a Bill? A good Bill could well be defeated for such reasons. The cost is not possible to quantify.

The same applies to all other offices including the courts. When a judgment is delayed, much potential in people and business are affected. Their capacity to generate revenue that the government can tax is reduced or compromised altogether.

Potential investors look into the speed and quality of conflict resolution in our courts and they may well choose another destination. The loss of the opportunity to generate revenue is thus lost.

Children drop out of schools because their fathers refuse to  pay school fees as cases delay in the courts. How does a nation ever quantify the loss of education opportunities to its young ones?

Is that not part of the cost that we should be addressing?

I am also persuaded by the thought that we also have the ability to manage the huge numbers of nominated representatives; if we elected more women and achieved the 2/3 ceiling of any one gender. We can then have representation within manageable cost levels.