Today Pastor Martin Ssempa wrote a piece for the Daily Monitor called ‘Why MPs need seven-year term to serve the country’. This is happening as the Constitutional Amendment is up for prolonging and making the Parliamentary Terms longer from the current 5 years to 7 years.
His arguments are artificial at best. They are the supposed sugar-coated flattery attempt to seal the deal on a third date. This isn’t the sort of arguments that hold any water in true argument.
The Members of Parliament have 5 years and its been a prefixed time for years. He uses the costs for running and the debt the MPs are getting for running their campaigns. So, it is a better investment for them, if they get 7 years instead of 5 years. He also says its a better investment to let them ride the same paid vehicle they are getting for that long instead of the now 5 years.
There are more simple way of stopping those expenses, right?
The first you can do. Is to revise the laws and make it less expensive to run as a candidate. The current MPs can ensure the costs of being an MP goes down. Have less allowances and have less perks. The MPs can usher in legislation that stops the commercialization of politics and the campaigns. Alas, that isn’t even in consideration in his argument. Which shows how flawed it is. When there are dire and very easy steps to undermine the costs for the taxpayer and for the state in concern with the MPs.
That would be cheaper for the citizens or taxpayers by the blink of an eye. If the MPs had less allowances, perks and other stipulated pay-incentives, which they happen to have today. The argument he has… they will be even more paid and have more time to settle in and get accustomed with wealth the office provides. A pastor is maybe not the ones to talk about greed, but that is “virtue” in the circles of power an influence. Therefore, the ability to stay longer. Might even trigger more entitlement and a more will to find new measures to enrich themselves. Not the opposite…
He also speaks of training and the time to serve. However, even the most seasoned and the ones who has been on several terms as a legislator or an MP. Haven’t necessarily done much in their time in office. This is not discussed in his piece. Neither the service delivery in general. Just the blunt idea that if given time. The ones becoming MPs will turn into seasoned Statesmen. If it was so… then the ones being in office since the early 1990s and early 2000s would have a better track-record and would be known for their legislation. Alas, that isn’t always the case and therefore… his idea is flawed.
The final stroke of genius is the biblical aspect of 7 years instead of 5 years. My counter to that. If you need two more years than what they have already had. Why do they need that and why couldn’t it suffice to do something earlier? Are the five first years barren years with no results and suddenly a yield comes in the magical sixth year before they campaign again on the seventh?
Well, this wasn’t cutting it for me. There was no substantial reason for me. Only a change of this kind will make the ones going for a monetary gain even more hardened. As they will benefit even more and they cannot be voted out. These will linger for longer time and their scandals might even be forgotten between elections. It is made for a one party control state. To keep their loyalist MPs and have their way. This isn’t to secure accountability or transparency, but give them a longer time to earn on their role as a representative.
The Pastor isn’t giving a remedy or a flair of hope. No, his polishing a path with good intent straight to hell. This here will not bring any of the good spirited intentions he might have. 7 years will only prolong the agony and the possible misuse of office. This here will not be for better educating or creating more profound knowledge of developing the state. The end-game is a grift and a hustle. Not a joyful ride to development and better institutions. That will be a lie and we’re not eating it. Peace.