The scorecard is good but poorly implemented
Aug 01, 2010
HONOURABLE Members of Parliament (MPs) welcome bodies or institutions like Africa Leadership Institute (AFLI) to assess their performance because the assessment enables them to know their strong and weak points and they try to address the weak points.
By Prof Apolo Nsibambi
HONOURABLE Members of Parliament (MPs) welcome bodies or institutions like Africa Leadership Institute (AFLI) to assess their performance because the assessment enables them to know their strong and weak points and they try to address the weak points.
Furthermore, the assessment enables their constituencies to know how to assess the contribution of their MPs. The public is also entitled to know the performance of MPs so that they are able to make informed and better choices in subsequent elections.
However, the instrument of assessment must be objective and must give more weight to quality than quantity. For example, an MP may make many statements whose quality may be poor. There is also the problem of identifying people who have the capacity to assess the quality of speeches or contributions made by MPs in the Legislature or communities. On page 16 of the Parliamentary scorecard 2008-2009, it states that each MP was asked to evaluate 20 other MPs (peer assessment).
However, we are not told how the 20 MPs were selected. Their objectivity in assessing their colleagues who were dealing with matters they disliked may have negatively affected their judgement in assessing objectively the quality of their colleagues and the reverse is true. If a political leader makes a statement on behalf of the Government or opposition or committee, who takes credit for the statement? This question has not been satisfactorily answered.
Attendance of plenary sessions is based primarily on whether an MP signed the attendance book for a given session. What happens if a member signs the attendance book, but is forced by compelling circumstances not to attend the session of Parliament after signing the book? There is also the problem of some MPs who do not complete the sessions of Parliament and cause Parliament not to have the necessary quorum for passing of Bills. This matter has not been captured by the scorecard.
In a multi-party dispensation, the issue of party discipline is important. Parties caucus on issues in order to agree on a common position to be presented in Parliament. However, some indisciplined members of some parties tend to disown the position of their parties on the floor of Parliament. An indisciplined MP who disowns the position of his or her party may make a contribution on the floor of Parliament and the scorecard will award marks for the contribution which may have injured his or her party.
Whereas it is the responsibility of the political parties to discipline their members, the assessors should be aware of this problem. This problem delays completing the debate on the floor of Parliament. It is important to capture how this problem affects the deepening of democracy in a multi-party dispensation.
In assessing the contribution of the MPs, we should remember that under Article 94 of our Constitution, clause 4c and d, a MP is allowed to move a private member’s Bill and is afforded reasonable assistance by the department of Government whose area of operation is affected by the Bill and Attorney General gives professional assistance in drafting the Bill.
An MP who moves a private member’s Bill should before doing so, contact the relevant ministries to ensure that he or she is not handling the matter which is being considered by the ministry. Otherwise, he or she will not be given leave by Parliament to move a motion on a matter which is being handled.
An MP who moves a private member’s Bill should be given significant marks for doing so. For example, Dr Chris Baryomunsi moved the private member’s Bill on the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Bill 2009 and the President assented to it. This Bill is very important because the FGM was causing birth complications such as obstructed labour and severe bleeding leading to death. MPs have a duty to sensitise the people about the usefulness of this Bill.
In some districts, chairpersons fear being dominated by Members of Parliament. But also Members of Parliament do not want to be undermined. For example, Prof Ogenga Latigo, the leader of opposition in Parliament, was denied to sit in his district council. They wanted him to seat in the gallery.
How has this problem been cured? Section 10 sub-section 2 of Local Government Act provides that an MP may attend meetings of a local council in his or her constituency. It does not clarify the status of an MP who attends a local council and thus it was easy to deny the MP a seat in a council meeting.
The cure is contained in a new amendment which states that a Member of Parliament may attend meetings of a local council in his or her constituency or district in an ex-officio capacity. The status of the MP is clear and, therefore, he or she cannot be denied to seat in the council.
Cases have been reported where some Members of Parliament have been given notice of district council meetings late in order to deny them the opportunity to attend District Council meetings. These problems should be captured when assessing LC5 attendance by MPs.
Sometimes the AFLI assessors have been resisted by some MPs in their constituencies. The major cause of this problem is that the MP has not been alerted by the assessors of their presence.
It is essential for people carrying out research to inform MPs when they are visiting their constituencies to assess their performance.
An important area which the scorecard has not given adequate attention is that an MP plays an important role in monitoring the implementation of Government programmes which help to transform the lives of Ugandans. These include UPE, USE, NAADS, roads, NUSAF II, NUREP etc.
Furthermore, an MP is expected to assist members of the district planning team in identifying the most crucial issues for development of the area taking into account the money available to them by the Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development and are also requested to have a work plan, a recruitment plan, and a procurement plan.
An MP is expected to assist his or her district in sorting out work plans, recruitment plans and procurement plans.
Other issues which influence the performance of an MP include the following: media; development partner; civil society organisations and heavy financial demands.
Mass media can either improve or tarnish the image of an MP by either concentrating on the negative aspects of MPs or by focusing attention on the good aspects of an MP, when they wish to promote them.
In some cases, print-media is influenced by opponents of an MP to mudsling him or her. The professional code of conduct should be rigorously enforced by the relevant agencies.
The role of development partner in the performance of MPs should be acknowledged.
Development partners through the deepening democracy programmes have provided financial support to Political Parties in order to perform their work more effectively.
Civil society organisation have financed projects which have benefited Ugandans. However, some of them have not aligned their support to the Government of Uganda National Planning Framework and some NGOs have duplicated programmes which are undertaken by Government.
The Office of the Prime Minister in conjunction with the Ministry of Internal Affairs has put in place a mechanism under which NGOs must disclose their source of funding, the amounts of money they receive and the programmes they intend to implement in order to avoid duplication. The NGOs which do not comply with this requirement will face sanctions.
MPs get a lot of demands from their constituencies which have a lot of financial implication.
They include paying school fees, medical bulls, funeral expenses and fundraising.
It gets worse during campaigns and election time. MPs are forced to spend a lot of their valuable time addressing these demands which affect their performance.
As a leader of government business in Parliament, I wish to state that when Parliament faces a stalemate, we negotiate outside Parliament for a compromise solution with the opposition, a measure which increases effective performance of Parliament in disposing of Bills or issues. The scorecard does not capture these diplomatic measures.
What is the role of the Speaker of Parliament and the deputy? The manner in which they preside over Parliament affects significantly the performance of MPs in the House. For example, they must have the skills to enable the different political persuasions of an MP to be voiced on the floor of Parliament. They must also guide MPs to rigorously follow the rules of Parliament.
On page 66 of the 2008-2009 scorecard, AFLI has decided to include any measures of the performance of the Speaker or the deputy Speaker because of their unique roles in Parliament. For they do not vote on Bills and they are required to be impartial.
However, since the Speaker and the deputy have constituencies, it may be necessary to assess their performance in their constituencies.
It has been suggested that in order to enable the Speaker and deputy to focus their attention on their functions, once elected to their posts, they should cease representing their “narrow†constituencies. However, this proposal will also have adverse effects on their re-election campaigns if they seek another term. If this proposal is adopted, it will require amending the Constitution.
In conclusion, we must pay tribute to AFLI for having improved the instrument of assessing the performance of legislators. But the instrument should be improved by capturing the issues I have raised and others which will be raised during the discussions.
The instrument for assessing the performance of an MP must pay more attention to qualitative rather than on quantitative issues. Furthermore, the people who assess the performance of the MP must also possess skills to capture the critical issues in Parliament, in committees and in the constituencies.
I wish to launch the third year Parliamentary scorecard.
The writer is the Prime Minister of Uganda
HONOURABLE Members of Parliament (MPs) welcome bodies or institutions like Africa Leadership Institute (AFLI) to assess their performance because the assessment enables them to know their strong and weak points and they try to address the weak points.
Furthermore, the assessment enables their constituencies to know how to assess the contribution of their MPs. The public is also entitled to know the performance of MPs so that they are able to make informed and better choices in subsequent elections.
However, the instrument of assessment must be objective and must give more weight to quality than quantity. For example, an MP may make many statements whose quality may be poor. There is also the problem of identifying people who have the capacity to assess the quality of speeches or contributions made by MPs in the Legislature or communities. On page 16 of the Parliamentary scorecard 2008-2009, it states that each MP was asked to evaluate 20 other MPs (peer assessment).
However, we are not told how the 20 MPs were selected. Their objectivity in assessing their colleagues who were dealing with matters they disliked may have negatively affected their judgement in assessing objectively the quality of their colleagues and the reverse is true. If a political leader makes a statement on behalf of the Government or opposition or committee, who takes credit for the statement? This question has not been satisfactorily answered.
Attendance of plenary sessions is based primarily on whether an MP signed the attendance book for a given session. What happens if a member signs the attendance book, but is forced by compelling circumstances not to attend the session of Parliament after signing the book? There is also the problem of some MPs who do not complete the sessions of Parliament and cause Parliament not to have the necessary quorum for passing of Bills. This matter has not been captured by the scorecard.
In a multi-party dispensation, the issue of party discipline is important. Parties caucus on issues in order to agree on a common position to be presented in Parliament. However, some indisciplined members of some parties tend to disown the position of their parties on the floor of Parliament. An indisciplined MP who disowns the position of his or her party may make a contribution on the floor of Parliament and the scorecard will award marks for the contribution which may have injured his or her party.
Whereas it is the responsibility of the political parties to discipline their members, the assessors should be aware of this problem. This problem delays completing the debate on the floor of Parliament. It is important to capture how this problem affects the deepening of democracy in a multi-party dispensation.
In assessing the contribution of the MPs, we should remember that under Article 94 of our Constitution, clause 4c and d, a MP is allowed to move a private member’s Bill and is afforded reasonable assistance by the department of Government whose area of operation is affected by the Bill and Attorney General gives professional assistance in drafting the Bill.
An MP who moves a private member’s Bill should before doing so, contact the relevant ministries to ensure that he or she is not handling the matter which is being considered by the ministry. Otherwise, he or she will not be given leave by Parliament to move a motion on a matter which is being handled.
An MP who moves a private member’s Bill should be given significant marks for doing so. For example, Dr Chris Baryomunsi moved the private member’s Bill on the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Bill 2009 and the President assented to it. This Bill is very important because the FGM was causing birth complications such as obstructed labour and severe bleeding leading to death. MPs have a duty to sensitise the people about the usefulness of this Bill.
In some districts, chairpersons fear being dominated by Members of Parliament. But also Members of Parliament do not want to be undermined. For example, Prof Ogenga Latigo, the leader of opposition in Parliament, was denied to sit in his district council. They wanted him to seat in the gallery.
How has this problem been cured? Section 10 sub-section 2 of Local Government Act provides that an MP may attend meetings of a local council in his or her constituency. It does not clarify the status of an MP who attends a local council and thus it was easy to deny the MP a seat in a council meeting.
The cure is contained in a new amendment which states that a Member of Parliament may attend meetings of a local council in his or her constituency or district in an ex-officio capacity. The status of the MP is clear and, therefore, he or she cannot be denied to seat in the council.
Cases have been reported where some Members of Parliament have been given notice of district council meetings late in order to deny them the opportunity to attend District Council meetings. These problems should be captured when assessing LC5 attendance by MPs.
Sometimes the AFLI assessors have been resisted by some MPs in their constituencies. The major cause of this problem is that the MP has not been alerted by the assessors of their presence.
It is essential for people carrying out research to inform MPs when they are visiting their constituencies to assess their performance.
An important area which the scorecard has not given adequate attention is that an MP plays an important role in monitoring the implementation of Government programmes which help to transform the lives of Ugandans. These include UPE, USE, NAADS, roads, NUSAF II, NUREP etc.
Furthermore, an MP is expected to assist members of the district planning team in identifying the most crucial issues for development of the area taking into account the money available to them by the Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development and are also requested to have a work plan, a recruitment plan, and a procurement plan.
An MP is expected to assist his or her district in sorting out work plans, recruitment plans and procurement plans.
Other issues which influence the performance of an MP include the following: media; development partner; civil society organisations and heavy financial demands.
Mass media can either improve or tarnish the image of an MP by either concentrating on the negative aspects of MPs or by focusing attention on the good aspects of an MP, when they wish to promote them.
In some cases, print-media is influenced by opponents of an MP to mudsling him or her. The professional code of conduct should be rigorously enforced by the relevant agencies.
The role of development partner in the performance of MPs should be acknowledged.
Development partners through the deepening democracy programmes have provided financial support to Political Parties in order to perform their work more effectively.
Civil society organisation have financed projects which have benefited Ugandans. However, some of them have not aligned their support to the Government of Uganda National Planning Framework and some NGOs have duplicated programmes which are undertaken by Government.
The Office of the Prime Minister in conjunction with the Ministry of Internal Affairs has put in place a mechanism under which NGOs must disclose their source of funding, the amounts of money they receive and the programmes they intend to implement in order to avoid duplication. The NGOs which do not comply with this requirement will face sanctions.
MPs get a lot of demands from their constituencies which have a lot of financial implication.
They include paying school fees, medical bulls, funeral expenses and fundraising.
It gets worse during campaigns and election time. MPs are forced to spend a lot of their valuable time addressing these demands which affect their performance.
As a leader of government business in Parliament, I wish to state that when Parliament faces a stalemate, we negotiate outside Parliament for a compromise solution with the opposition, a measure which increases effective performance of Parliament in disposing of Bills or issues. The scorecard does not capture these diplomatic measures.
What is the role of the Speaker of Parliament and the deputy? The manner in which they preside over Parliament affects significantly the performance of MPs in the House. For example, they must have the skills to enable the different political persuasions of an MP to be voiced on the floor of Parliament. They must also guide MPs to rigorously follow the rules of Parliament.
On page 66 of the 2008-2009 scorecard, AFLI has decided to include any measures of the performance of the Speaker or the deputy Speaker because of their unique roles in Parliament. For they do not vote on Bills and they are required to be impartial.
However, since the Speaker and the deputy have constituencies, it may be necessary to assess their performance in their constituencies.
It has been suggested that in order to enable the Speaker and deputy to focus their attention on their functions, once elected to their posts, they should cease representing their “narrow†constituencies. However, this proposal will also have adverse effects on their re-election campaigns if they seek another term. If this proposal is adopted, it will require amending the Constitution.
In conclusion, we must pay tribute to AFLI for having improved the instrument of assessing the performance of legislators. But the instrument should be improved by capturing the issues I have raised and others which will be raised during the discussions.
The instrument for assessing the performance of an MP must pay more attention to qualitative rather than on quantitative issues. Furthermore, the people who assess the performance of the MP must also possess skills to capture the critical issues in Parliament, in committees and in the constituencies.
I wish to launch the third year Parliamentary scorecard.
The writer is the Prime Minister of Uganda