Contribution by: Chisala, Maxwell L.
The last time I scrutinized the national budget, I was not too surprised to determine that more than forty percent (40%) of our national budget goes to services the national government is not constitutionally mandated to provide to its citizenry.
These services include all manner of freebies (government hand-outs) to individuals in non-emergence situations: building all manner of houses to all manner of individuals across the length and breadth of the country, all manner of cash transfers to all manner of individuals, all manner of expenditures on farm inputs to all manner of our rural folks.
These are unconstitutional expenditures in-spite of the national assembly having sanctioned them! There are very good reasons the constitution grimaces at the thought of committing an already over-burdened tax-payer to cough-up for these ‘unnecessary’ expenditures on ‘niceties’ most low-income tax-payers struggle to acquire themselves or may never acquire themselves in their life time but have to see to it that some else acquires those ‘niceties’ through such not-so-public programmes—these programmes are prone to ‘undomesticable’ abuse by politicians (especially ruling party politicians) looking for ways to endear themselves to prospective rural voters with such programmes most likely to be massively expanded horizontally and vertically; programmes of this nature are difficult to marry with our market economy constitutional dictates— economic management and financial probity without compromising on accountability, effectiveness and transparency, governing without erosion on public trust but more importantly such freebies (government-handouts) have never been known to work (lift people out of poverty, much less make them more productive). Actually they are not vote-getters either unless they reach ‘critical masses (the nooks and crooks of the entire voting constituency).
Of course the constitution does provide for exceptional situations where government can use tax-payers’ money for freebies (government hand-outs) to individuals but requires a declaration of a ‘state of emergency’. How is the tax-payer ultimately assisted by these highly personal programmes that should be distinguished from public expenditures on such public services as public education, public health, public security, core infrastructural services such as provision of public portable water, public transport network, public security, etc.?
Of course, ,Government is happy to provide these ‘unconstitutional’ services (actually in most constituencies at the expense and in neglect of services it is constitutionally mandated to provide) because these programmes are easy to implement but more importantly the programmes are undoubtedly hubs of contagious corruption and a world of uninhibited unaccountability where government functionaries and their buddies happily help themselves and accountability is the furthest thing on the minds of such partakers.
The money wasted on these ‘unconstitutional’ services would have made a huge investment difference in the services government is dismally failing to deliver to the citizenry. The Government wishes to appear kind and magnanimous with tax-payers’ money when the tax-payer himself/herself cannot get the services it is paying taxes for.
Government is implementing these obviously unconstitutional programmes oblivious to the constitutional requirement of declaring a ‘state of emergence’ if it wants to engage in these ‘unconstitutional’ expenditures. How much more money would we free for the services the government is constitutionally mandated to provide if we put an immediate end to the frenzy of providing ‘unconstitutional’ services or at least limiting them to a miniscule percentage of the national budget?
