Crossing the floor a matter of integrity

THE government’s ranks have recently been swelled by defections of two members from the Opposition’s National Alliance party.
The two concerned, Maprik MP John Simon and Usino-Bundi MP Jimmy Uguro have written letters to NA explaining their reasons and requesting release by the party.
There seems to be only one reason given by both that we know of, that they need to be in the Government to bring much-needed development to their electorates.
Such reason begs examination because it implies a deeper malaise.
We read this to mean that Opposition MPs are not being given their District Services Improvement Programme funds and their Provincial Services Improvement Programme funds among others.
At the same time, we read that such funds might be offered as lures for MPs to cross the floor. This is wrong in principle and in law.
The DSIP and PSIP allocations are appropriated by Parliament when it passes the national budget each year. The budget is an Act of Parliament and therefore law.
To prefer Government MPs over Opposition MPs in the disbursement of these funds can be seen as a form of mismanagement and an abuse of the budget appropriation law and perhaps even the Public Finances Management Act. They would be prosecutable if mismanagement can be proven.
The principle that such behaviour is happening is all the more serious for two apparent reasons.
Firstly, an entire electorate or district is discriminated against because its leader chooses to sit on one side of Parliament rather than on the other side. No deep philosophical lines divide the two that we can see.
It is imperative that any government worth its salt ought to look beyond politics to the development needs of each district and to address each need fairly, distributing resources equitably as demanded by the national goals and directive principles direct governments in unambiguous terms.
That was, after all, the thinking behind the various improvement programme funds.
Secondly, a parliamentary democracy absolutely requires a strong and functioning Opposition.
An Opposition provides alternative policies and programmes and provides essential checks and balances on the Government to deter and prevent excesses. The Parliament itself is a check on the executive government.
It has its own civil service in the Parliamentary Service headed by the clerk and gets its own annual budgetary appropriations as does the judiciary each year to ensure the separation of powers is assured.
The various Parliamentary Committees with membership drawn from both Government and the Opposition are required to inquire periodically into issues of national interest and report back to Parliament.
These include inquiries into executive government policies and programmes. To cause an opposition to be weak or to disappear altogether is to invite the onset of one party government and that is dangerous.
The O’Neill government is at its strongest in terms of numbers. It can pass laws without counting on Opposition numbers.
Only where it requires two thirds or absolute majority to pass constitutional laws and national emergencies does it require the Opposition and that is not a bad situation at all, as such important legislations require far deeper deliberations.
As an aside, it may be time that four decades after Independence our leaders should bring far stronger depth and character into their jobs and their conduct, to stick by their principles and not to be swayed too easily.
The Supreme Court has held that the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates proviso for members to stick to the parties which endorsed them is illegal in that it contravenes Constitutional freedoms of movement and speech.
Fair enough but the principle contained in that provision remains – fluid politics lead to unstable governments and those have had dramatic negative effects on development as we have seen over the years. Politics, after all is not about delivering goods and services per se but about developing policies and laws for proper and Christian conduct and for equitable distribution of wealth so development is uniform and sustainable.