Fixing the EAC with lawmakers is an impossible task

Joachim Buwembo’s opinion piece in The EastAfrican magazine titled: MPs just want to chill in Arusha but if they won’t fix EAC, scrap it! was a list of some challenges causing serious performance issues to the regional bloc. Of interest was the conclusion to that piece: “East Africa now has a flag and an anthem, thank you, but what do they do in our lives? Therefore, bold steps to be legislated in Arusha and sent to the six or seven capitals for adoption/domestication cannot be taken by a regional assembly of tired, frustrated losers or those sent as a form of Siberia from the individual countries.

The terms of reference for EALA MPs should be reviewed to require expertise and non-partisanship. Otherwise, if the EAC thing cannot be fixed, then let it be scrapped”.

Mr Buwembo makes an interesting point about these representatives, that the best and brightest should represent their countries in Arusha. This is an ideal outcome.

The argument in the conclusion presupposes that the members of parliament sent to each partner state’s parliament are among the best and brightest. However, that is far from the truth, and it is these national assembly’s members of parliament who give us the representatives to the regional parliament in Arusha.

To so many of us, it is difficult to remember or successfully name at least half the names of those representing the country in the regional parliament. This is a product of many things including the process through which these representatives are picked to a general lack of interest because few see any merit from the parliamentary proceedings in Arusha.

Consider the qualifications of those who pick regional MPs.

Two comedians offer a better perspective on the matter than most other ‘sensible’ people. One is a character from a popular British comedy of the 1980s. Himself an MP, he responds to a question of whether MPs were underpaid in very unflattering terms. He argues that being an MP is “…a vast subsidized ego trip. It’s a job for which you need no qualifications, there are no compulsory hours of work, no performance standards…” Another is an American comedian and commentator whose views on members of the US Congress mirrors those of the British comedian. He argues that being a congressman (or congresswoman) is “literally the only job in the world you can get with so much prestige and so many perks while being a fool with absolutely no skills, knowledge, or qualifications…” This one goes further, arguing that almost every other job out there requires certain skillset except being a member of Congress.

The constitution offers the most basic requirements for anyone who wishes to be an MP. Of these the most “difficult” is belonging to a particular registered political party which has to sponsor anyone who dreams of making it to Dodoma.

The process within these political parties of picking their candidates for a parliamentary election can be a messy affair, and depending on the political stakes, it could be one characterised by allegations of corruption. Regardless of who emerges the winner, they are tied to their political party first before being bound by those who voted them into office.

It is simply impossible to require “expertise and non-partisanship” for regional MPs while those picking them have no such encumbrances. After all, those picked have to belong to a political grouping even when they come from a country that allows for independent MPs because they could not have made it there without the support of national MPs.

Most importantly, one way or the other, regional MPs do not see Arusha as their preferred final political destination. It is not a place for any one with political ambition to make their name. Their pomp, ceremony and circumstance do not come anywhere close to the national MPs. It is merely a stop in their political journey, so the rest of us will continue to be represented by people who mirror those constituting our own national parliaments.

Reforming national parliaments has proven to be “impossible” as all partner states are either dominated by a single political party or constantly changing political alliances. So, if fixing the EAC has to go through its parliament, then the whole thing is doomed. But scrap it? No! They will not go for it. Half a loaf of bread is better than no bread at all.