|
Back to Index
SADC
Parliamentary Forum and Civil Society to converse for Africa's Development
African
Forum and Network on Debt and Development (AFRODAD)
August 18, 2004
HARARE – Parliamentarians
from the Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum (SADC
PF) will converge in Harare on 24 and 25 August 2004, to discuss the loan
contraction process in a Dialogue that has been convened by AFRODAD, the
African Forum and Network on Debt and Development. This will be a follow-up
to National Launches of the studies in the five countries under which
the studies were undertaken.
The overall objective
of the Dialogue Meeting, with the theme "Making the loan contraction
process inclusive, transparent and accountable in Africa" will be
to influence SADC Parliamentarians on the need for them to take a more
proactive role in the loan contraction process so that external loans
to Africa can be properly utilized for sustainable development of the
continent.
Specifically, the
Dialogue Meeting will attempt:
- To share AFRODAD’s
key research findings on the loan contraction process study (2004) conducted
in five African countries (Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi, Uganda and Tanzania).
- To establish a
strategic link between Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and SADC Parliamentarians
for future exchange of information.
The Dialogue Meeting
will bring together about 12 Members of Parliament in the SADC region,
invited through the SADC Parliamentary Forum, based in Namibia and 15
selected members of African CSOs and members of the media.
Parliamentarians’
Names so far:
- Hon Duke Lefhoko
– Botswana
- Hon Jones V. Chingola
– Malawi
- Hon Katuutire Kaura
– Namibia
- Hon Wetshotsile
J. Seremane – South Africa
- Hon. Hassy HB Kitine
– Tanzania
- Hon Edith Z. Nawakwi
– Zambia
- Hon Charles Majange
– Zimbabwe
- Hon C.S. Nagongo
– Speaker of the Parliament of Swaziland
As this is one of
the first few CSO-SADC Parliamentary meetings, AFRODAD hopes that expectations
of the meeting would create a basis for a strengthened relationship between
CSOs and Parliamentarians.
Most importantly,
the meeting will create a basis for the following:
- Using research
findings from the studies, for increased knowledge on policy issues
at stake in loan contraction cycles.
- Continued pressure
on our governments to make transparent decisions about whether to finance
development programmes and projects through loans or grants, based on
the nature of the project, the ability to repay the loan from the returns
of the project, and future trade-offs with public investment needed
to reach the Millennium Development Goals.
- Ensuring that various
stakeholders are included in the decision-making process through their
formal representatives in Parliament and official watchdog bodies, and
through civil society organisations and networks that represent their
different interests.
- For pushing our
governments, through such Dialogues with Parliaments and other bodies
to enact legislation that will require the executive bodies responsible
for dealing with external debt to make debt information accessible to
the public.
The Dialogue Meeting
will seek to initiate debate on exploring mechanisms/ structures or processes
outside Parliament through which citizens can participate in the loan
cycle.
Background on debt
Africa’s
external debt burden has gained widespread attention as a serious policy
issue over the past few years. The region is suffocating from debilitating
debt, which is currently at US$ 330 billion. Africa’s annual debt service
of US$ 15 billion has had serious effects on social services and employment
levels. Most countries in the region are so deeply indebted that the possibility
of breaking out of the debt cycle seems virtually impossible.
Africa is haemorrhaging
and no amount of promises and remedies from the West seems anywhere near
capable of staunching the mortal wound inflicted by debt and restoring
her to good wealth. As most people are aware the debt crisis has become
a complex and unending problem for most Third World countries.
Attempts by both debtors
(to a limited extent) and creditors have been developed in the past to
deal with the crisis but to no avail. The enhanced HIPC initiative, for
instance, has not and will not achieve its primary objective, namely to
assist HIPCs to ‘exit permanently from debt rescheduling’. There are many
reasons for this, well-documented reports published by groups campaigning
for debt cancellation in creditor and HIPC countries - a recent World
Bank OED Review rightly points out that its founders have oversold the
initiative, creating ‘unrealistic’ expectations about the direct and indirect
benefits of a small or medium-sized reduction in the debt service paid
by HIPC governments and in their overall debt stock. In addition, many
countries judged to be ‘off track’ with their compliance to fiscal and
other policy reforms demanded by the IMF in exchange for debt relief may
not reach ‘completion point’.
Despite intensified
efforts to avert African Debt crisis, the worsening of the debt problem
has put into serious question the effectiveness of debt management strategies
that have so far been used. African countries and regional blocs jointly
or individually do not have comprehensive national and regional debt management
systems. In most African countries today, debt management has been viewed
narrowly as mere debt recording. At national level, it is quite common
that the chief financial agencies of governments do not communicate effectively
with each other, the Central Bank may have insufficient knowledge of what
the Finance Ministry or the planning agency are doing. In most cases the
recording unit (debt office) does not have appropriate legal powers and
effective data collection mechanisms to affect its job.
Most African countries
have not lived within their constitutional and stated policy framework
in terms of debt management. Experience and evidence has shown that since
independence the Legislature has tended to be weak vis-à-vis the
Executive. The mere creation of these institutions/instruments without
proper monitoring and evaluation is crucial. The external debt borrowing
limits as prescribed in their constitution have been exceeded. Borrowing
for recurrent expenditure as opposed to capital expenditure has made it
difficult to repay external debts. The use of supplementary budgets is
the order of the day, with instances where some loans seek Parliamentary
approval when implementation is already underway.
Unmentioned in African
economic and debt literature is the corruption of the political leadership.
Corruption, defined as a violation of the formal rules governing the allocation
of public resources by officials in response to offers of financial gain
or political support has grave impoverishing results and consequently
increases indebtedness.
The consequences of
corruption in government and society is on the increase. Public resources
are scooped into few hands and are even not re-invested; they are often
transferred into Swiss banks where they represent a substantial drain
in the economy.
This sort of unaccountable
governance is an entrenched colonial practice. Public accountability affairs
are still conducted with little respect for transparency, procedure and
people’s participation. The case of Mobutu’s plundering the resources
of his country, former Zaire, to the level of the amount of external debt
the country owed to creditors remains a classic example of the corruption
of the African leadership.
In most countries
of Africa, there still remains need for explicit formulation of rules/regulations
of resource allocation and construction of constitutions that provide
safeguards against economic and political corruption.
Most importantly this
is to ensure that there is multi-stakeholder participation in the decision-making
processes in the loan contraction cycle.
Parliaments are supposed
to be one of the fundamental institutions of democratic societies, in
nurturing democracy in African countries. They have many roles in addition
to legislating - representing a nation in its diversity and democratic
values.
Well-functioning Parliaments
obviously cannot be created overnight, and established democracies have
worked through many of the issues that now confront African countries.
Parliaments in democratic
societies have multiple roles. They represent the people, and have a responsibility
to them. They have a lawmaking and governance function. They also act
as a check on the executive branch and on the arbitrary use of power.
However, the challenges
facing Parliaments and Parliamentarians in Africa today are considerable.
Most African countries are currently in the process of political transition.
For many, this is the first opportunity to establish representative governments
after a protracted period of single party or military rule. For some,
it is also an opportunity to make the transition from war to peace, and
to create mechanisms to resolve disputes through the process of governance,
rather than armed conflict.
Under single party
regimes, the Parliament was in effect an extension of the executive and
the role of Parliaments was in many cases reduced to "rubber stamping"
policy developed by the government and party. Even when not taken to such
extremes, Parliaments enjoyed little independence and exercised no real
authority. Parliaments in most democratising countries also have to overcome
the legacy of patronage politics and the personalization of political
power -- both lingering features of single party systems, which undermine
the institutionalisation of democratic processes. Where power is personalized,
adherence to informal, rather than formal, rules, and reliance on contacts
and connections are the norm.
The already difficult
task of Parliamentarians, whether from ruling or minority parties, is
frequently complicated by the expectations of constituents, who seek personal
benefits in the form of jobs, money or scholarships in return for their
support. As a result of political transition, Parliamentarians throughout
Africa are learning how to function in more democratic societies. Those
who served under single party regimes find that their roles and responsibilities
are changing. Newly elected representatives have to learn how Parliaments
operate, as well as their own role in them. Even those Parliaments composed
predominantly of ruling party members have greater independence, and Parliamentarians
are also much more likely to have to account for their actions and to
demonstrate that the Parliamentary freedoms and immunities afforded to
them are not abused. Countries coming out of conflict face special difficulties.
AFRODAD is particularly
interested in ensuring that its policy work filters through to Parliamentarians
who in turn could influence policy change around Debt and Development
issues.
Realizing the critical
roles that Parliaments and Parliamentarians could play in the development
process of Africa and the urgency to deal with the problems associated
with the non-transparency and non-accountability of the loan contraction
cycle; AFRODAD deems it important to begin a process of engaging with
Parliamentarians as one of the many actors that can play a key role in
influencing the decision making process when it comes to procuring and
disbursements of development loans.
Visit the AFRODAD
fact
sheet
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
