The Nation (Nairobi)
January 18, 2004 Posted to the web January 19, 2004
Oscar Obonyo Nairobi
Is your Member of Parliament suddenly proving elusive? And are you at a loss as to why he or she cannot honour pledges for fund-drives, or are you wondering why "call or see me next week" has become his/her perpetual excuse?
A survey carried out two months ago, explains just why most of our MPs are becoming desperately dodgy - they are spending far more than they earn.
The report, "Paying the Public or Caring for Constituents", explores expenditure patterns by the MPs.
The Transparency International-Kenya survey is part of an endeavour to examine aspects of public affairs that impact on corruption.
Imenti South MP and Justice and Constitutional Affairs minister Kiraitu Murungi, when he was in the Opposition, told the Eighth Parliament that his job was the most difficult he had ever held.
For instance, although by the time of the survey, an MP earned a gross salary of Sh395,000, comprising "commuted mileage" (Sh330,000), and constituency, house, sitting and "responsibility" allowances, most of the MPs interviewed in the study ended up with less than Sh50,000 in the pocket!
The findings indicate that the average daily expenditure of MPs is Sh25,000. Some of the big spenders hit well over Sh50,000 a day on transport, handouts to constituents and support staff, donations, kickbacks and entertainment.
The crucial question then is: If MPs cannot satisfy such demands from their own salaries and savings, where do they turn to?
The study takes a look at one aspect of political life that appears particularly conducive to corruption in its various forms - how MPs respond to demands for individual and collective financial assistance.
Political survival for MPs entails the capacity to reward constituents in two ways. One is the ability - actual or perceived - to promote development by directing State resources from various ministries or departments to one's constituency.
The other consists of individual financial ability and generosity in addressing constituents' problems and contributing funds to local projects.
Much of the latter comes in the form of communal fund-raising [harambee], a practice that has over the years contributed to escalating levels of corruption.
Indeed, as other work by TI-Kenya has shown, MPs seeking support from those higher up in the national patronage structure to meet such demands has contributed to the rising levels of corruption.
More commonly, an MP (or prospective candidate) must display generosity. Therefore, he or she must supplement his or her personal wealth with material support from elsewhere.
But the MPs, too, have themselves to blame for lifting the people's expectations too high. In a desperate move to win elections, candidates promise anything on earth including tarmacking roads, building schools, hospitals and offering employment to the youth.
This raises the constituents' hopes in the ability of the candidate to perform and deliver on his/her promises. On winning, all look to him/her to fulfil what he/she promised.
According to the study, the "heaviest burden" an MP has to bear throughout his/her career is a voter.
"The voter may need a contribution to a fund to enable his/her child to go for studies or medical treatment, non-receipt of his pension, unfair treatment by a chief in a petty boundary dispute with a neighbour, or cattle rustling, to name but a few," the 31-page report says.
The voter's needs are innumerable and generally go with the expectation of cash handouts. An MP who ignores such personal needs risks being ousted in the next election.
According to Westlands MP Fred Gumo, what matters most at campaign time is cash. Mr Gumo recalls with amusement how a colleague was told to "collect his tarmac road" and offer cash-handouts instead. He had angered the electorate by enumerating his development projects and "offering nothing".
Indeed, the study in which 20 MPs voluntarily participated, has curious revelations. Asked whether the voters expect MPs to address personal problems that require financial assistance, 19 respondents, answered in the affirmative.
All the MPs said the demand, and actual expenditure are greater in the period prior to elections. More than 80 per cent of those seeking assistance were in need of cash for personal problems.
Regarding reasons for such expenditure, 15 MPs conceded that they did so specifically to increase their chances of re-election. Interestingly, the majority says they are happy to assist their poor constituents.
One MP said: "I have realised that most people are thankless. Most of them take you for a ride. However, it is a price we have to pay for failing to educate them."
Many of his colleagues expressed similar views. They said: "The work of an MP should be divorced from welfare issues."
For some, however, the answer is simple: "One has to sustain the interests of his/her supporters. It's inevitable to spend, but not because one wants it. It's the only way to remain an MP in Kenya."
And to achieve that goal, most of the MPs have made radical adjustments on their expenditure. This pattern is best captured by pie-chart illustrations for seven MPs in the report. Typically, the cash is spent on five major needs: transport, entertainment, political party expenses, harambees and personal needs.
On average, the large chunk of allocation is reflected in harambees and transport. In one shocking case, an MP surrendered 73 per cent of his earnings to development projects in a month.
Financial support to political parties and expenditure on entertainment represent the smallest figure in most cases. However, the charts reveal an extraordinary case of an MP who carried home only 11 per cent of his total earnings.
What really "slash" an MP's salary, says Dr Naomi Shaban of Taveta, are "mandatory" and optional deductions, including the pension scheme, health and accident insurance, cooperative society and political party contributions and the car loan.
"Some of the expenses are not particularly a necessity but owing to our social standing, we are compelled to meet them," says Shaban.
Critical questions arise from this whole scenario. What is the role of an MP? Is he/she an implementor or a facilitator? Is he/she the person who "brings" development or one who mobilises resources for development?
Is he/she a provider - paying hospital bills, school fees and so on, for his constituents? Sadly, most Kenyans get it wrong here.
How about the MP, poses the TI-Kenya report, does he/she effectively understand his/her role? And just where do they get the money to meet the "alarming demands of their constituents"?
Also vital is the relationship between MPs and their constituents, as expressed in the personal assistance and donations , especially in the period leading up to an election.
Probably owing to this factor - in almost the very first business of the House this year - parliamentarians approved a 200 per cent increase in their salaries and a cash grant of Sh3 million each to purchase a car.
The report concludes that "given such an insatiable demand for financial assistance on the ground, it appears unlikely that any particular increase in MPs' remuneration would enable them to more fully satisfy their constituents' demands.
Seemingly, the answer rests in the apparent aggressor - the voter. So how can constituents be aided to understand the role of MPs and stop bombarding them with their personal and collective requests?
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.563 / Virus Database: 355 - Release Date: 1/17/2004
