Madam,
Since when has Microprojects become a campaigning tool for Members of Parliament? This development should be a cause for concern for all emaSwati and raises a critical question: Is government indirectly admitting to abuse of State funds, in direct violation of the Constitution?
What the Constitution says
The Constitution of the Kingdom of Eswatini Act, 2005 is clear and remains the supreme law of the land. On tinkhundla as development engine – not MP engine.
Section 80 (2) and (3) define tinkhundla: The tinkhundla units or areas, inspired by a policy of decentralisation of State power, are the engines of development and the central pillars underpinning the political organisation and economic infrastructure of the country through which social services to the different parts of the Swazi community are facilitated and delivered.
And Section 218 (2) is even clearer: “The primary objective of the Tinkhundla-based System of Government is to bring government closer to the people so that the people at sub-national or local community level progressively take control of their own affairs and govern themselves. The Constitution never says Tinkhundla is an engine for MP re-election. It says development is facilitated through Tinkhundla structures to communities who govern themselves – not gifted by an MP. Role of MPs, bucopho and indvuna yenkhundla
Section 95 defines an MP as a member elected from an inkhundla serving as a constituency to represent people in Parliament – to make laws, debate policy and ensure effective use of public funds. It does not define an MP as an implementer of projects. The implementers at grassroots are constitutionally elected under Section 87: Bucopho and indvuna yenkhundla are elected at chiefdom and inkhundla level through secret ballot to be the political heads of development at that level, working with CDCs and community-elected project committees. For years, Microprojects has respected this. It was an administrative government programme implementing urgent developments like rural electrification, school rehabilitations, building community clinics, building footbridges and bringing clean water to communities, commissioned by the community in their respective chiefdoms through its CDCs and bucopho as a direct inkhundla link for community development, not by an MP. Now that role has been redefined.
The current anomaly – is this constitutional violation? Taking development to the community has, of late, become a personal achievement for MPs. A government-built community hall, road or classroom is presented as ‘brought by your MP’. Most current MPs are new and used their own funds to get into Parliament without Microprojects. Now they complain they will lose re-election because Microprojects is grounded. This raises suspicion that they want to use State funds to own government tinkhundla community development programmes as personal achievements.
This is where government may be in violation of the Constitution:
Violation of Section 80 & 218
By personalising development to MPs, government is centralising power to politicians instead of decentralising it to the people as required. It defeats the objective of people taking control of their own affairs.
Violation of separation of powers
MPs are legislators (Section 106). When they become implementers and claimants of executive projects funded by taxpayers, they collapse the separation between Legislature and Executive. Section 233 and Public Finance Management principles require State funds to be used impartially. Using Microprojects as a campaign tool is using State funds to buy votes, which is electoral malpractice.
Bucopho and tindvuna question
Under this anomaly, are tindvuna tetinkhundla and bucopho still relevant? If all development credit goes to MPs, what role is left for indvuna yenkhundla, who is supposed to be government’s administrative head at inkhundla level, and bucopho, who is supposed to be the community development link at chiefdom level? Their constitutional roles under Section 87 have been rendered redundant. Why not abolish these two positions in future? Government cannot continue to pay for these structures from public coffers while allowing MPs to hijack their function.
Nhlanhla Zwane
