The Daily Telegraph, a conservative British newspaper, since mid May 2009, started reeling out news items on a daily and systematic basis on how British MPs in the House of Commons spent the taxpayers money on frivolities. Initially everything sounded like fiction, a fluke to be dismissed by an onlooker. It turned out that the newspaper was going to take weeks in churning out the stories well sorted thematically and across all the dominant political parties with MPs. Daily Telegraph claimed it has information running into thousand of pages, and that they had engaged twenty five lawyers to help them sieve the information and appropriately advise. But their goal is publish and be damned!
When the British taxpayer first read the news, on the first day, then the second, day and third day, the fourth and,… they moved from total disbelief to anguish, then to anger and the quest for revenge at the polls. Constituency after constituency, constituents after constituents, people began to ask for the head of their MPs. The charge was as follows, “so this is how you have been spending our money, on docks, non-existing mortgage, frivolous second homes,, lawns, trees, bed sheet, employment for sisters and brothers, rent-free homes for daughters and their husbands, the charges where unending. Worse still even the speaker Michael Martin was guilty. Liberal Democrats and British Nationalist Party, then had a field day over the Labour Party. Everywhere was heated up. MPs said that the manner Daily Telegraph secured the documents was indecent. The public had no patience for such claim, they insisted that what was important was not the manner the document was procured but the substance of the news. Some MPs then changed the story, claiming that they were going to publish their financial records in July 2009, anyway.
Its election year David Cameron wanted to make political capital, the polls shows that the Tory are 18 points ahead of the New Labour Party which stands at 22% rating standing third to the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. Nick Clegg leader of the Liberal Democrat led the campaign for the Speaker to resign, something that has never happened to the house in over 300 years. When the speaker saw the mood, he agreed to step down on July 12, 2009. MP after MP, the initial reaction was that some of them will hit the law courts to sue the Daily Telegraph for libel; then more revelations came and they realised that the newspaper was not done. The MPs then said well, “we operated within the rules”. Some MPs frivolously claimed that they were “stressed” or “rushed” their claims and financial retirements, or did not have time to sort or tidy their returns-all kinds of spurious and frivolous explanations. Then, later the MPs changed gear, one after another they began to apologise to constituents and finally when apology did not work, many of them began to step down one after the other, many did not directly admit that it was on account of their wrong doing. Some hinged their stepping down on pressing family commitment, others on poor health, and yet others on the poor health of their spouses. Britons were not fooled, they were even more angry.
Britons were unhappy to hear that the House of Commons had no financial rules ,hence, they have operated , to use the words of Gordon Brown, “ like a club of gentlemen”. Some MPs are now calling for reforms of the system of accounting, they blamed the rules, and exonerated themselves in the process, as being too loose. The British taxpayers were so unhappy noting that the conduct of the MPs was based on frivolity, indiscipline, deceit, fraud and dishonesty; they urged the Police to intervene, charge and prosecute some of the MPs for criminal offence.
Sensing that there was going to be low voter turnout and that things were dangerously moving in directions that favored the British Nationalist Party (BNP), the clergy in Britain led by the Archbishop of Canterbury came out openly two weeks ago urging voters never to vote for racist and divisive party such as BNP. That while it may be true that MPs have let the people down, however the electorates should still find options in the dominant party David Cameron came out to state that the nomination process of the Tories had been re-open and that anybody who wished to contest for nomination was free to apply. This was particularly because many Tory MPs had been consumed by the prairie fire. The Labor party suspended one Minister and chief adviser to Gordon Brown, four Labour MPs were asked to face a panel and they were all found guilty and asked to step down.
Almost all the major parties-Liberal Democrats, New Labour and the Tories are in confusion and unsure of what the future holds. But The Labor party seems to have been the worse off, because it is the main party taking all the bashing, to the exclusion of other political parties. This may well be because of the perception that it formed the government. Brown has made frantic efforts to do some fire brigade, he has dissolved the unit handling the finances of the House of Commons. He has constituted an independent group to design rules for the Lower House.
So far, the total amount involved in the scandal rocking the House of Commons is not up to Five Hundred Thousand Dollars (US500,000). This is by Nigerian standard “chicken change” to many politicians and office holders. But the key thing for the British electorate is that, it is British Taxpayers money that is being frivolously spent without sensitivity and accountability. This is also taking place in a situation of hardship and where 2.2 Million people have lost their jobs and many more are likely to face a similar plight.
What is strange to me is that neither the British government nor the British Taxpayers called what happened in the House of Commons corruption. I have read many British newspapers and I did not find any of them making such remark. It then left me wondering and asking the question: for who is the charge corruption meant? Third world, African countries? So, British MPs are not corrupt? What is the meaning of corruption, then?
The British people have woken up the sudden realization that their politicians are not really what they think they are. That they cannot be self-accounting and accountable. If that is the case, how can they be trusted with the responsibility of controlling the lives of all Britons? Now the issue has shifted from that of accountability to Political Trust. The taxpayers are increasingly cynical about their politicians. They do not believe that they are decent people or are sensitive to the plight of the people. They are wondering how almost half of British MPs can be caught pants down in the act.
What the British electorates need to realize is that MPs are not immune to corruption and people are bound to take advantage of loopholes whenever and wherever they exist-it is human nature. The taxpayers need to come to that realization. But to admit that will mean “reducing” British politics and politicians to the level of Third World politicians and the British people and government are too ashamed to admit this, feeling it is a form of humiliation for a system of government that has existed for over 400 years.
.
It should be noted that it will take a long time before British politicians can rekindle political trust in themselves. The electorates no longer believe in them, they no longer trust them. They see them as not better than a group of people who are simply out there to extort and pilfer, instead of being the custodians of public interest. It will take a long time for the British electorate to overcome this shock and discovery. But this points to what so-called advanced democracies take for granted. They assume that the system of accountability is self-automated and self-propelling. Not realising that it constantly requires to be checked, cross-checked and double-checked: a case of who guards the guardian and watch -your- steps type of situation?
The issue of political trust in the way I have applied it has nothing to do with serving the public good, it has to do with the personal conduct and morality of those who hold public office and who show due diligence and discretion in what they claim for themselves or do not claim for themselves from taxpayers, i.e. where financial issues are involved. The electorates are saying that the British MPs have no right to be frivolous about their claims whether rules say anything to the contrary or not. And if failing to pass this test, the electorate are saying that they have lost confidence in the MPs. On the other hand, some of the MPs wanted to make a claim of moral uprightness until they found out that their arguments could not stand and the consequences where too grave for the political parties at elections which were just close on hand. What to do? Soft landing exit and a galore of apologies and remorsefulness. That did not work. The election results have started coming in from most of the counties, Labour candidates are losing in what Gordon Brown has called a “painful defeat”. One third of his Ministers have resigned and the Tories and Liberal Democrats are urging him to call for General Elections.
What lessons for Africa? The issue involved is about public probity and accountability and so forth. But it is all about public trust, political trust and social trust. In Africa, our leaders speak above us, even when they are wrong they find it difficult to admit, no apologies to anybody. They are the No. 1 family, First citizen and everybody else live in their shadow. The people have no rights, they have no basis to complain? Why are they complaining? Indeed the media house that exposed such information of misdemeanor or corruption risks its editor being arraigned for sedition. Second, the voice of the people will NEVER count at election, because after all the elections will be rigged through violence and other fouls means. Third, some may even trivialize the sum involved. “how much is the amount?”, they will query, is it not “common one thousand Pounds sterling?” They will then ask the people to go to hell, and nothing will happen. We must begin to tell our leaders that something will happen for lack of accountability. That there are social and political consequences for not being accountable to the people.
We must begin to learn that public purse is different from personal purse. For taxpayers money we must be prudent or frugal. Others may ask, how many people pay tax outside the PAYE in Africa? The issue of tax payment creates a compact, a specific relationship between the citizen and those who govern. Citizens are very scrupulous when it comes to financial matters. They want those who hold public office to account for everything they collect and at all times. Whereas, those who depend on rentier economy and royalties such as the case of Nigeria, are less predisposed to holding their elected officers accountable. We must disprove this hypothesis and find more constructive ways of political networking and organization to rebuild the social base of our polity in Africa. We must demand both financial and political accountability from our public officers in ways that make the social contract substantive, concrete and meaningful.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });