Myths drive our politicians!

J. Roughan

7 June 2010

Honiara   

 

It would do parliamentarians and those running for high office a great deal of good for themselves, but especially for the nation, if those seeking to be Members to thoroughly study why so many act the way they do. National elections, due this August, will probably vote in more new  Members than old ones who are looking to come back to the House. This is the time, then, for all of them to take stock of their motives for seeking high office.

 

A myth is a notion that has some truth inside it but it is so surrounded by half-truths, falsehoods and errors, that it is often hard to separate the good from the bad. A popular myth in the beginning of the last century, for instance, had it that the Whiteman was better than those of an other color. Such an idea is understood as nonsense today but it did have its believers for a while. Our parliamentarians also carry around in their heads a set of myths which when deeply studied turn out to be false or at least misleading.

 

# Myth 1

 

A successful MP is one whose first task is to properly handle the RCDF funds (as well as the other money schemes:e.g. Rural Livelihood, Millennium, Special Mini Projects, Parliament Mini Project Funds).     

 

FACTS

 

Although development monies given to Members have increased a great deal over the years--$400,000 in 1993 when the scheme first started to today's $2 million--the number of parliamentarians returning to the House after an election have gone down in number not up. At each national election, approximately 4 out of every 10 members are never re-elected. That number has stayed the same over past national elections. However, in the 1997 and 2001 elections, more members than ever lost their seats, although funding administered by Members had grown substantially, more and more of them have lost their seats in parliament. In 1997, 51% never returned while in 2001, the number of Members losing their seats rose to 64%!

 

If development funds were so critical to voters to help them gauge whether their member was doing well, one would be forgiven for thinking that the Members should easily gain back their seats because this development fund base was increasing, not decreasing. But as stated in the above paragraph, that has not been true.

 

Of course MPs mismanagement of development funds has become part of the current political picture. Some constituencies are already calling in the Courts to demand that their Member show how and where all the funds given have been properly accounted for.These cases have not come to trial as yet but when they do, it will show that properly handled RCDF funds is a two-edged sword--able to cut two ways.  

 

Unfortunately, managing development funds has become, in the minds of many members and not a few of their voters, the most important aspect of judging whether the person is a good parliamentarian or not. Out the window has gone the idea that a member is first and foremost a law maker, keeps the government on its toes and guides sound policy for the good of the whole nation.

 

Isn't this why so many parliamentarians have been failing to turn up in chamber and when they do decide to be present hardly say a word in the debate which they are voted into office for? Transparency Solomon Islands recent study of Members poor daily attendance at Parliament was shocking. But worse still was the fact that few Members had anything to say about the laws that were past.

 

Next week I want to uncover a few more myths which are driving our politicians to act the way they do. No one is saying that proper care should not be given to development funds. But that's not the job of Parliamentarians. Their duty is much higher: to be our representatives in the highest reaches of government. Leave project management, social welfare work and acting like walking ATMs for those who are better prepared.