Africa-Press – Eswatini. Observing the progression of Senate elections, I could not help but think that something has to change about the way we conduct these elections.
While observing the progress of the elections certain things became stark to me. With the current Senate elections model, Eswatini will remain among the top 10 unequal societies in the world. The nexus between the vote and resource allocation hinges on accountability, it is clear to all that to contest a Senate seat in this country one needs money, serious money! I contend that the system ought to change for a couple of reasons, accountability, people-centric policies and resource allocation.
Resource allocation
Eswatini is classified to be among the top 10 unequal societies in the world, furthermore, the country has high rates of poverty with 58 per cent of the population living below the poverty line. Also, the country is dealing with a high unemployment rate; 33 per cent of the population is unemployed and over 50 per cent of the youth is unemployed. Food security is also one of the vices that the country is dealing with, the current cost of living pressures are hard on the household sector, pushing a lot of our people into a situation of food insecurity. These vices contrast with a very favourable GDP per capita of approximately US$4 000, if the benefits from economic activity were symmetrically distributed.
I contend that the current electoral system at Senate level does not produce a cadre of officers who will be effective in resource allocation. We need to utilise tools to ensure that resources are allocated to where they are most needed, politicians play a huge role in this regard. However, as long as they are not accountable to the electorate, they have no incentive to act in the interest of the electorate. Since one needs to have money for Senate, then resources will always favour those who have money, which is at the peril of the 58 per cent of our people who live in poverty.
People-centric policies
A part of Senate is elected by Members of Parliament (MPs), who are elected by the people. I understand the whole concept of an electoral college, however, I worry that it is not the best for people-centred policies. If Senate, like the House of Assembly, was directly accountable to the people, then we would have a bevy of people-centred policies. It is imperative that elected officials act at least to satisfice the electorate. However, how can you be satisficing to those you are not accountable to? Satisficing is a decision-making process that strives for adequate rather than perfect results; in managerial economics we contend that the heads of business must act at least in a satisficing manner to appease shareholders because they want to keep their jobs. The same concept can be applied to politicians, they will always seek to be satisficing to those who keep them in office and not the electorate. People-centred policies in such setups are likely to only occur at the benevolence of those elected officials who do wield power. Note I use the word benevolence deliberately; an elected official who is not liable to the people will only act in the interest of the people if they are feeling philanthropic enough not because there will be any consequences if they do not! It is important that the architecture of the Senate elections process is such that the elected senators remain accountable to the people not MPs.
Accountability
Lastly I put it that we need to reconsider the Senate elections configuration purely because we need accountability. Elected officials play a crucial role in fiscal policy decisions and also in institutional policy decisions. I worry if the elected senators are accountable to anyone? If one has to pay an MP an exorbitant sum to get a seat, is the payer accountable to the payee or the payee is accountable to the payer or the payer is accountable to their money that got them the seat? The current situation does not breed accountability to the masses, rather it breeds accountability to those with money. The current setup opens the entire administration to State capture. In essence I worry we have always moved in perpetuity as a captured State, with national resources channelled to favour those with money. It is imperative that we recalibrate the architecture to infuse accountability to the 1 999 939 emaSwati, not just accountability to 69 emaSwati in the House of Assembly. The system has to have clear modalities of how Senate can be held accountable by the people.
Accountability and growth
Engendering accountability into the election process will ensure we reap the full economic benefits of the electoral process. We need a system that will ensure that government exercises its resource allocation role, to ensure that the wealth of the nation is redistributed across all who live in the country. Accountability will also ensure that we root out corruption within the civil service. The taxpayer needs to have confidence that they can rely on the elected officials to protect the fiscal purse, not join in its plundering.
Source: times
For More News And Analysis About Eswatini Follow Africa-Press
