By Terence Chimhavi
It seems that our (Zimbabwe)
government has gotten used to the idea of unilaterally imposing laws,
regulations and policy without bothering to consult the general public who are
supposed to be affected by or be the beneficiaries of the same. However, this hazardous
modus operandi of unsolicited imposition as opposed to consultative policy
promulgation, usually invokes sometimes nasty reactions from the public.
 |
| SI 64 of 2016 - regulations precipitated a backlash from travellers. Picture: nehandradio.com |
One such issue to happen in
recent times that quickly comes to mind, is that of Statutory Instrument (SI) 64
of 2016 with regulations banning the importation of a wide range of domestic
goods. The state-controlled Herald newspaper (18 June) reported that government
had imposed new regulations that were meant to tighten screws on the
importation of some basic goods already available locally; this as a measure to
stem the ever surging import bill as citizens throng to neighbouring countries
to import cheaper alternatives for domestic consumption. Barely a week after
this imposition, the same state-controlled daily, The Herald (20 June, 2016)
reports that the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA), charged with implementing
the SI suspended its implementation following protests by citizens at the Beit
Bridge border post during the weekend.
Various other glaring examples of
such hastily imposed regulations, laws and policies that have met resistance by
the citizens are abound. The perennial problem of public transport illegal
pick-up and drop-off points, popularly known as ‘mushika-shika’ is another case in point that has courted numerous
such propositions from the powers that be, that however seem to be failing
mainly because of the lack of broad consultation with stakeholders involved. Not
so long ago it was the issues of quail birds. Then came along the ‘national
pledge’. Just yesterday, we are told (in the Herald of 21 June) that civil
servants representatives snubbed a meeting with Cabinet and Reserve Bank of
Zimbabwe representatives, ostensibly in protest at the lack of consultation by
some public officials before the public release of new pay dates for civil
servants. The proposition to introduce bond notes to ease the biting liquidity
crunch has already torched a considerable backlash even before their release
into circulation. Such are some of the pitfalls of lack of consultation.
 |
| Mushika-shika phenomenon poses a threat to human life. Picture: The Herald |
True to its character, these are
not the first regulations to be imposed by government (including its local
chapters), and certainly will not be the last. And it seems over the years
government has thrived on this iron-fisted approach to addressing the myriad
problems to afflict the citizens from time to time. The reason why they have
become accustomed to using this approach is the fact that the recipients of the
majority of such laws, regulations and policies, who are the citizens, have
barely resisted such blatant and undemocratic imposition. At times, the
imposition is accompanied by coercive means to ensure that citizens tow the
line. True, many a times, citizens have reluctantly accepted this imposition,
knowing very well how corruption in the system has led to them wilfully or otherwise,
outdoing these unilaterally imposed regulations.
The bottom line here is that before
any law, regulation or policy is introduced, there always has to be some form
of consultation first; targeting not only the main group of citizens that such
a proposition seeks to deal with or affect, but holistically include all
stakeholders who are likely to be affected in one way or the other by a new
regulation. This is but one key aspect of policy or decision-making; and any
authority that claims to be genuinely representative of those they preside over
cannot ignore the importance of consultation when promulgating new laws,
regulations or policies.
Over the years, it has become
common place for ministers and other high ranking officials to make pronouncements
without consulting those that are likely to be affected, directly or otherwise
by these pronouncements. It may be that when one is appointed minister or some
other such high-sounding leadership posts, their main task is the promulgation
and implementation of policy and sometimes law to actualize such policy as they
may deem relevant to solving people’s challenges. Some mistakenly take their pre-name titles as
entitlements to think on behalf of everyone else, sort of literally ‘putting
yourself in the shoes’ of those you seek to assist.
But the truth of the matter is
that no policy can succinctly address the real challenges of a people when the
very same people have not been consulted in its promulgation. Scholars of
public policy will point to the very notion of consultation as an over-arching
requirement in the life cycle of any policy – one that permeates all stages of
the cycle - for it to be effective in successfully addressing the problem as
identified initially.
 |
| Simplified policy process cycle Picture: UNDP |
Clearly, something seems terribly
wrong with how our government is doing its business where policy formulation
and implementation is concerned. One glaring omission is the obvious
side-lining of a key stakeholder – the citizens – except only when it comes to
implementation. Yet, it is the very same citizens that have to bear the
implementation of such policies. And because they are not meaningfully involved
in their promulgation, such regulations, where imposed, usually fail to address
the real problems as they affect the citizens. And more often than not, this
leads to citizens passively or openly opposing some such propositions by
government. Lack of consultation of stakeholders is a key feature of bad
leadership.
Someone really ought to help our
government leaders on the intricacies of policy promulgations. At its various
stages, consultation is key. Even when setting the agenda or identifying the
problem, leaving out those you identify as the affected is self-defeating. If
you do not consult this key stakeholder, then for who is such a proposition
supposed to be of assistance? If the affected cannot point out or suggest what
they think are alternatives to a problem, can someone seated in an
air-conditioned office really put themselves in the shoes of someone plying the
Harare-Johannesburg route week-in-week-out to make a living, and still come up
with a uniform perspective to addressing the core issue fuelling the high
import bill? And even when these propositions do fail as has become the order
of the day, are our leaders in government even prepared to evaluate these
failures through among other things, consulting the citizens?
It is one thing to dig in on a
wrong way of doing things, and a totally different thing to learn from one’s
mistakes and chart a better path. This lack of citizen consultation has cost
the government dearly in the past, and will continue to do so in future. And after
all is said and done, consultation remains key for holistic and sustainable
development.
The writer writes here in his personal capacity and can be contacted at tchimhavi@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment