Many reasons were offered why Constituency Development Grant (CDG) is a bad idea. Almost all the other players who are institutionally accountable for a vibrant democracy criticized CDG. But the DPT government is resolved to roll out 2 million ngultrums annually to every member of the National Assembly to be dished out to their constituencies. The impudence of the DPT government to go ahead despite criticisms from all around reminds us once again what we had all along feared when DPT was elected with an overwhelming majority. Is CDG a testimony to the evils of majority based democracy?
The only creditable justification that the government offered in favor of CDG was when the Finance Minister explained how CDG would be strictly monitored to be used only for developmental works and that the CDG would not pass through the hands of the MPs. In a blatant breach of an already paled justification, CDG now is used to pay the boatman to ferry people across the Moa Khola and to pay for the scholarship of some students, repair of Lhakhangs and the like. Perhaps what had been overriding was to resolve an issue that was politically harming rather than addressing genuine developmental need of the people in the constituency.
The impudence and the guts of the DPT government in bulldozing CDG leads one to believe in one of the two intentions. One, that the DPT government genuinely hopes to supplement developmental needs of the constituencies through the CDG. Two, that the DPT government hopes to gain political mileage as CDG is directly rolled out to the voting constituents through the MPs of the National Assembly. However in the final analysis, both motives will prove to be counterproductive. There cannot be genuine and net developmental supplement in the constituencies and the CDG will only harm the DPT politically.
The simple reason that there cannot be extra development is because the 2 million Ngultrum has to be dished out of the same coffer. The 2 million now is going under the name of CDG which was anyways going to the gewogs through the institutionalized channel for budget allocation. It is the case of a mother giving a whole cake at the daughter’s birthday. The CDG is the small piece from the cake that the mother has cut away to give to her daughter as a special gift. The mother only has one whole cake. She is simply smart to cut away the small piece to make it a special piece. But for the daughter she can treat only as many friends as she can with the whole cake. Perhaps the daughter would be happier if she believed that a whole cake is but a small piece less.
CDG will harm the DPT politically because it will potentially create more unhappy than happy voters. There will be different beneficiary groups in the constituency vying for the CDG. The MP will be held responsible for the final selection of the development activity. For the usual development projects, the geowg administration machinery has a sound development planning and prioritization mechanism put in place. This planning and prioritization mechanism is a reasonable and objective method of identifying development projects. Its greater merit is that everybody in the development constituent is involved in planning and prioritization and hence there is ownership in the selection process. In the case of the CDG, the project identification does not go through the planning and prioritization mechanism, nor is there political incentive for the MPs to churn projects through a systematic planning process. Hence, the MPs stand to use their own subjective judgment on the need of their constituency. There are adequate temptations to tilt the judgment towards those offering better political prospects. In the final analysis, the MPs will be seen as unfair, biased and ‘political’ either wittingly or unwittingly by those who are not benefited by the CDG. Such a perception can only harm the DPT during the next election.
DPT is fast earning an image of a political party arrogantly confident in its majority. The 45 berths out of the 47 in the National Assembly belonging to DPT make it easy for people to connect many unilateral decisions to the number of seats in the august hall of the parliament. The CDG “bulldozing” only testifies and confirms to that image. The DPT who has perhaps won the first parliamentary election on the strength of its commitment to a vibrant democracy is in breach of its core promise. CDG required more debate. The debate had been curtailed. Debate is at the core of democracy. Without debate DPT cannot create the foundations to a vibrant democracy. Therefore, CDG only perpetuates the image of a political party which talks but does not walk.
DPT government has a good opportunity now to turn what is going sour into something sweet. The CDG should be stopped. The first year’s roll out should be the last. Perhaps the CDG fund could be allocated into the disaster relief fund as a unanimous gesture of solidarity by all the MPs. The impact of the CDG fund to help rebuild houses struck by the recent earthquake in the east would be very significant and earn for DPT genuine respect of the citizenry. Pulling back on CDG can only be good for democracy, the country and the DPT.
No comments:
Post a Comment