It has been two months since Members of Parliament (MPs) had their induction at Speke Resort Munyonyo. Speaker Jacob Oboth-Oboth explicitly told them that Parliament’s quality of work would determine Ugandans’ livelihoods. More pointedly, he warned them: “Do not ask for payment for trips you have not taken or sign attendance for meetings you did not attend.”
In Uganda, an MP’s job is arguably the most secure. Job security also comes with enviable remuneration that ordinary Ugandans can only dream of. Generous remuneration should incentivise and enable the job holder to concentrate on their work and deliver results.
But a closer look at the MP’s four major functions — legislation, representation, budget approval and oversight — suggests that performance is barely measured in the real sense. The government pays legislators for winning elections, not work that qualitatively fosters leadership.
In the private sector, people are hired because they have the skills and experience to do the job very well. Sometimes there are costly, bad hires, of course. But a good company should be able to hire and retain qualified and experienced workers.
Companies measure performance objectively, with key performance indicators, targets and goals clearly spelled out. The employee records their achievements because it helps build their case in a quarterly or annual performance review.
When it comes to Ugandan legislators’ work, however, difficult questions arise. How do Ugandans determine whether an MP is good at legislation? (Some MPs never speak in Parliament at all.) How do Ugandans measure the quality of representation? What constitutes effective oversight? If an MP chooses to concentrate on their personal business, as many do, and fails to deliver, confident that they will still be paid, how can they be stopped?
In a simple job like sorting products in a factory, a shift worker is required to work a certain number of hours and they can be paid only if there is proof that they have worked. If they do not report for duty, they cannot be paid. By contrast, MPs who have performed abysmally and those who are good at their job are remunerated in essentially the same way.
MPs do not worry about losing their remuneration because it is regular like clockwork. It is hard to imagine an MP failing at their job once they win an election.
Making a living in elective politics, for those who can win an election, is so easy that very few politicians would wish voluntarily to go back to, say, legal practice or self-employment. Winning a court case or making a profit in a business requires real, measurable, quantifiable hard work. It is demanding and very stressful. The Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) taxes you. You have to pay people you employ.
The status quo has made politics particularly attractive to young and older Ugandans. The prospect of easy remuneration emboldens individuals — and they are very many — who do not even know the core functions of legislators, to try their luck. They know that success will almost certainly have nothing to do with performance. And that helps explain why aspiring MPs sell land and homes to raise money for campaigns. Money can clear all the obstacles in their path to Parliament. And there is money to reap once they join.
Having said that, in quality terms, it is going to be difficult for Uganda to attract high-calibre politicians. If nearly everyone can become a politician once they win an election and their performance is not measured at all, how can the taxpayer have value for money, and how can the country change for the better?
Reforming politics is not going to be easy. Both the governing NRM and the Opposition care more about who can win an election, not who ticks all or most of the boxes for a good leader and can win.
Consequently, voters will continue to vote, politicians will continue to win, and taxpayers will continue to pay — whether the work gets done or not.
Mr Namiti is a journalist and former
Al Jazeera digital editor in charge of the Africa desk
[email protected]
Credit: Source link