District funding part of leverage

 THE use of District Services Improvement Programme funds has always been a bone of contention for many. 

The annual fund for districts, which is K10 million, is at the disposal of local MPs who use the money to build infrastructure and fund other projects in their electorates for the benefit of their constituents. 

But the disbursement of this fund by the government has clearly not been done with the core priority, the people, at heart. 

The National Research In­stitute’s Ray Anere this week made the observation that the DSIP funds was one of the main reasons being given by many MPs for joining the Government.

The disbursement of the funds, which is every district’s right regardless of whether its sitting member is in the government or the opposition, has clearly become a compelling factor for these MPs switching alliances or leaving the parties they set out from.  

In the 2012 General Election Peter O’Neill’s People’s National Congress party and several other parties formed a coalition government that had about two thirds of the 111-member national parliament.

Now that figure has swelled to more than 90 per cent and the DSIP is one of the chief causes of this movement.

Where previously their main problem with district funds was that it was more or less a politician’s money to use at their discretion (in some regards it is still a slush fund), the Government seems to have turned the tables on the MPs by withholding the money in exchange for their support.

Anere said the DSIP funds had earned the characterisation as a “political tool” to lure and attract members of the opposition and keep in check members of the coalition.

Anere said the trend was undermining the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates. 

“Every time an MP moves from the opposition or a party and joins the government or a coalition party, there are implications of whether there is compliance with the Organic Law,” Anere said.

Something needs to be done about this as the ones who are suffering are not the politicians but the people out in the districts who are supposed to benefit from that funding. Now for the money to be guaranteed, the local MP has no choice but to be in Government. There is no fairness here – it is their way or the highway.

Madang Governor Jim Kas was the latest opposition MP to succumb to the pressure and frustration of not being allocated his provincial government’s fair share in order to fulfil their provincial obligations.

He joined the government ranks last week, citing a lack of action by the state on many of his funding requests. It will be interesting to see if the Government can justify this apparent ploy. 

One would not expect them to admit to such an underhanded tactic but the proof is there for all to see with the number of MPs simply in the Government for no other reason than to reap a reward for their allegiance. Party policies, principles and philosophy has taken a back seat. It is all about survival, for those in power and those outside.

Whether this loyalty is genuine is debatable given Kas’s frank admission that he only did it for the money. What does that say about the numbers in the Government? Surely, these MPs have compromised their positions by allowing themselves to be at the beck and call of those in power.

How can the people be sure that when controversial bills are tabled and voted on these MPs are casting their ballots for the right reasons.

The sooner the balance of parliament is retuned the better it will be for the democratic process to flourish.

At the moment there is only a semblance of democracy as the decisions are being made by a small group who have the house at their mercy. What MPs should be asking themselves now is whether they are in the Government benches for the right reasons or have they trashed their ideals and principles out of desperation, or greed.

We cannot be too critical of MPs who cross the floor for wanting to give their districts development, but we can question the direction democracy is taking, and in particular whether we have a so-called vibrant democracy at the present time under these conditions.