Duduzile Nyathi
Bulawayo – A recent decision by Finance Minister Mthuli Ncube to accede to the welfare demands of Members of Parliament (MPs) has ignited a firestorm of debate across social platforms, with WhatsApp groups buzzing with opinions on the matter.
The allocations, announced by Ncube, include approximately US$120 million for staff salaries, ZiG250 million for additional cars for MPs, ZiG378 million for clearing Constituency Development Funds (CDF) arrears, and further millions for fuel, allowances, and residential stands.
This move has been met with criticism from various quarters, including members of the public who feel these demands are excessive and poorly prioritized.
In a Matebeleland Pulse WhatsApp group conversation, members expressed their discontent and skepticism. One user, questioning the opposition’s stance, asked, “…what are the opposition legislators saying? Are they part of the bandwagon?” This sentiment was echoed by another who noted, “Ruling party and opposition MPs have always been a united force when it comes to their welfare issues.”
The discussion highlighted a perceived double standard where MPs from both the ruling ZANU-PF and opposition seem to band together on issues of personal benefit.
The debate further delved into the historical context, with a user pointing out, “During GNU, ministers from ZANU PF and MDC N and T refused the Mazda BT50…they agreed that these vehicles were not suitable for the office of a minister,” suggesting that such demands are not unprecedented but still contentious.
Concerns were also raised about the allocation of funds, with one group member stating, “I am in agreement with all proposed allocations, but my worry is prioritizing when budgeting. CDF should be at least 4/5 of all allocations in terms of the total amount budgeted.” They criticized the imbalance where the budget for monitoring projects (cars) nearly matches that for the projects themselves through CDF. “The main aim will be development. CDF is 378 million while additional cars are 250 million. There is a slight difference. The cars are for monitoring projects in the constituencies, yet there is little money allocated to projects compared to the amount for monitoring.”
The conversation also touched on the broader implications for governance and public service. “They are getting stands again. These are the very same people who got the $40,000 housing ‘loans’ towards the end of their last term,” one user noted, questioning the necessity of yet another housing benefit.
Another member questioned the need for additional vehicles, “Why do chairs of portfolio committees need cars for? They normally use parliamentary buses for their outreach programs.”
Economic management was another focal point, with one user drawing parallels to business practices, “If you are an employer, make sure you give them salaries that are not more than 30%. Mthuli prioritizes workers more than the work that should be done.”
The discussion extended to other public sector workers, “The main employees the government owes are civil servants…..their plight is not in good shape,” highlighting the neglect of other public servants in favor of MPs’ benefits. The sentiment of selfishness was clear, “MPs are being selfish nje.”
Other comments that came through are as follows:
- “Please add an option that says these are treasonous demands,” suggested one user, indicating the severity with which some view the MPs’ requests.
- Another user proposed drastic measures, “Zimbabwe needs a suspension of the electoral practice and then a serious clean up. In other words, Martial Law,” reflecting deep frustration with the current political system.
- “This is why these days ivigoroni for being councillors or MPs is increasing…….sekudliwa shame…..” was another reflection on how the allure of such benefits might corrupt the intent of public service.
Calls for more drastic measures were voiced, with suggestions like suspending electoral practices for a “serious clean up” to address what some see as systemic corruption and inefficiency in governance.
This public discourse underscores a growing frustration with how parliamentary welfare has been prioritized over broader national development needs. As Zimbabwe grapples with economic challenges, the allocation of public funds for MPs’ comfort remains a contentious issue, stirring debate on the ethics of leadership and fiscal responsibility.
