An opinion: Increasing MPs’ levels of Accountability
15th February 2010
Increasing MPs’ levels of Accountability
The eruption of a row between Kenya’s Prime Minister Raila Odinga and President Mwai Kibaki over allegations of corruption in Kenya serves as a stark reminder of concerns over issues of governance and transparency on the African continent. Just this weekend, Prime Minister Odinga suspended two ministers over corruption allegations, only for President Kibaki to claim that Odinga did not have the authority to do this. However, whilst this serves to highlight problems in the fight against corruption, it is worthwhile to underline some positive initiatives aimed at increasing the accountability and transparency of elected individuals in Africa.
Only last week, an article in Tanzania’s The Citizenreported that Twaweza, a non-governmental organisation had issued a report on the performance of MPs in Tanzania’s National Assembly. The result is based on the amount of basic and supplementary questions asked, and on the number of contributions made during parliamentary debates. Whilst it should be underlined that the performance of MPs cannot be judged solely on the basis of the quantity of their contributions in parliament, this initiative can clearly serve to provide citizens with knowledge of those MPs who are least active during parliamentary sessions, and hence who may be less likely to ensure that the interests of their constituents are upheld. The article points out that worryingly, six of the ‘worst ten parliamentarians’ are actually Cabinet ministers. However, I think the fact that Cabinet ministers are more likely to do the answering than the questioning, coupled with the increased probability that opposition MPs are likely to be more active than the Government’s MPs, is a natural symptom of most parliamentary democracies and thus perhaps not as worrying as is portrayed.
A similar system has been used by an independent Ugandan think-tank, the Africa Leadership Institute, which has in recent years issued scorecards for MPs in the Ugandan Parliament. The scorecards rate parliamentarians on things such as attendance and participation at parliamentary debates or meetings. The first scorecards were published in 2007, and led to an increase in attendance by MPs, amidst revelations that parliamentarians only attended approximately 25% of parliamentary sessions.
It has become all too common to highlight the corruption and lack of transparency in African politics. The parliamentary expenses scandal in the UK highlighted the fact that neither is our own parliament, with its 800-year old history, immune to scandals and to claims of lack of accountability. The two initiatives outlined above serve to underline the fact that steps, however small they may be, are being taken to increase parliamentarians’ accountability to their citizens in Africa. Indeed, listening to their constituents’ needs and ensuring that the issues relevant to them are put across and discussed, is central to the very role of elected representatives. By publicising the MPs’ attendance and work in parliament, citizens are given the opportunity to decide for themselves which of their elected officials have lived up to the task which has been assigned to them. By no means do I wish to imply that all is good in African politics… indeed, in spite of the spread of democratic elections throughout the African continent in the last couple of decades, many institutions remain weak and claims of corruption are rife. However, it has perhaps become natural for the media, and indeed ourselves, to focus on negative aspects of African politics. But in this case, can Western democracies take a leaf or two from Uganda’s and Tanzania’s books?