Prime
MPs should push for a law against empty promises
Pupils of Abwoch Primary School in Ongako Sub-county, Gulu District having lessons under a tree. Despite several promises by the government to improve the situation, so much remains to be done as these people remain in the coldness. FILE PHOTO
Government pledges. A great number of election promises are broken. There is strong pressure on politicians to make promises which they cannot keep. But the solution is simple: Think about the promise before you make it. Many times promises are made in haste.
At the Mosque on Friday, Imam Hassan asked us to teach our beloved children to be good citizens. That we must help them remember to be courteous. That we must remind them to keep their promises like clockwork. That we should teach them not to make promises they can’t keep.
That we tell them to value accountability. He said, a promise made is a debt unpaid and a debt unpaid is a sin before God and man. This Imam reminded us that for every promise we make, there is always a price to pay. He also warned our leaders against promising what they ought not; lest they be called on to perform what they cannot. In his own words he said: “Promises are like the full moon; if they are not kept at once they diminish day by day but the voters cannot forget them.”
As a way of concluding his summon, he asked leaders at all levels, including a family head to promise only what they can deliver. He said while losers make promises they often break, winners make commitments they always keep.
This inspirational sermon, however, points to one thing: That Parliament must revisit the new Bill seeking to help the governments fulfill its promises to the people. Those in government must also accept the fact that endless broken promises have dented their image. For instance, the President appears committed to his declared objective to turn Uganda into a middle income country in five years, which some would say is long way from the promise of an integrated, self-sustaining economy made in 1986.
Shelving the Bill
In this column, I am not about to count the broken promises that have turned into what I may call, “opportunistic window dressing.” In any case you know them. That will be for another day. Let’s look at the object of The Implementation of Government Assurances Bill, 2008. This Opposition-led Private Members Bill was politically declared “unconstitutional” in a monkey versus forest style. After President Museveni rejected this Bill in March 2008, as usual the NRM Caucus was quick to do the same.
In the circumstance, the Executive claims the Bill depicts government as non-performer and that passing such a Bill will not create money needed for the implementation of the broken promises to the people of Uganda.
An attempt by MPs led by Issa Kikungwe (DP, Kyaddondo South), the former Chairperson of the Government Assurance Committee to compel the President and his ministers to fulfill promises they make to the country has since taken an ugly political turn in the House. A friend on the committee, then, intimidated to me that they were told by some big wigs in government that to draft such a Bill it will be “Kamanyiro” —meaning familiarity. They were reminded how familiarity breeds contempt and in the end, the Bill, in spite of its good intentions, was nipped in the bud.
The Executive’s antics on this Bill notwithstanding, putting these matters in perspective, Herbert Sebastian Agar, an American author in his book, The People’s Choice, reminds leaders that any civilisation rests on a set of promises; if the promises are broken too often, the civilisation dies, no matter how rich it may be, or how mechanically clever. Hope and faith depend on the promises; if hope and faith go, everything goes.
Nsibambi’s take
When the former Leader of Government Business in Parliament, Prof. Apolo Nsibambi, appeared before the Government Assurances Committee, he claimed the Bill was an indictment against government for non-performance and targets President Museveni and his Executive.
In his own words, he said: “This Bill is not going to create money for the implementation of the pledges government makes. Even if it’s passed into law, it can’t be a guarantee for government to honour its pledges. There are many competing demands on government and this is the problem why we have not fulfilled these pledges.”
In the events that followed, the President was also quoted saying even if MPs proceeded with the Bill he won’t subscribe to it. I was told the President had wanted the Bill title amended to read: “The Implementation of Government Assurances and Economic Saboteurs Bill.” Well, politics aside, this Bill is critical in service delivery and should, therefore, be returned to Parliament for consideration.
The President’s negative reaction to the Bill is not a problem because Article 91 (5) gives Parliament powers to pass the Bill into law in public interest even if the President does not agree with it. As for those who were pointing fingers over government’s failure to implement its promises, they should know that passing blame accomplishes nothing. Either you own your problems, or they will own you. Your choice. When you blame others for what you’re going through, you deny responsibility – you give-up your power over that part of your life, and you annoy everyone around you in the process.
The import of this Bill needs to be supported without any political predisposition. The Bill among other things seeks to establish a legal framework through which government promises to the citizenry would be honoured. The Bill has caused jitters from the front bench; with some of ministers especially non-performers fearing that it could open avenues for agitation from the voting masses. For instance, the Bill seeks to criminalise failure by a minister to cause the implementation of a government assurance or promise made on the Floor. Section 14 of the Bill proposes that such a minister be charged with neglect of duty under the provisions of the Penal Code.
Section 114 of the Penal Code stipulates that: “A person who, being employed in a public body or a company in which the government has shares, neglects to perform any duty which he or she is required to perform by virtue of such employment, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”
Because of the absence of this Bill, the Government Assurances Committee chaired by Aruu MP Odonga Otto is considered “dead.” This is so, because government officials and state agents often do not define timeframes within which specific assurances will have been implemented—curtailing service delivery in the process.
Ministers’ agitation notwithstanding, this Bill will ensure that the government is accountable to Parliament and the people of Uganda. It will also help the government to walk its talk and ministers will in the end learn to jump. In Luganda we have a saying: “Enkima tesala gwa kibira” — meaning a monkey does not pass judgment over forest disputes. Since monkeys depend on forests as their habitat, they would find it hard to be fair even when the truth is conspicuous.
