Reading an article ‘MPs want more pay rise’ which appeared in The Post dated July 17, 2014 revealed many things that both members of parliament (MPs) and electorate in this country should consider to increase job creation with decent pay and make Zambia a  better place to live for all Zambians.
It is reported that MMD’s Mafinga MP, Catherine Namugala led other backbenchers in demanding increase in MPs’ emoluments for them to cope with many demands they face.
‘As MPs, we want more money; we deserve more money. We demand that our salaries are increased so that our gratuity goes up’; Hon Namugala demanded.
Ms Namugala is reportedly having said that the public needs to know that MPs are poorly paid; and they can’t live as impoverished leaders.
Supporting such salary increase claims, UPND Monze MP, Jack Mwiimbu said MPs are wallowing in poverty because of poor emoluments.
And PF Chama South MP, Effron Lungu in supporting his colleagues is reported having said it is difficult to visit a constituency as an MP without parting away with huge sums of money to assist people in the community. Hon. Lungu continued to say being an MP is an uncomfortable job, especially that electorate think that MPs get a lot of money.
And reacting to such lamentations and demands for increased salaries for MPs, parliamentary committees’ deputy chairperson, Chifumu Banda ruled that MPs calling for increased emoluments were in order; and that their claim was justified.
On one hand, one can agree with Hon. Chifumu Banda that MPs need salary increase. But on the other hand, one can argue that MPs’ salary increase is a highly debatable issue because of what MPs are already getting as salaries and conditions of service and many other factors.
Therefore, many various parliamentary stakeholders have argued that reasons and timing for MPs pay rise are wrong; and therefore unjustified considering many other pressing issues which other workers and ordinary citizens in their respective constituencies are going through.
Zambia Congress of Trade Union (ZCTU), Zambia Union of Nurses Organisation, Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) and many other stakeholders and individual citizens have opposed MPs’ demands for pay rise as unjustifiable; giving various reasons including that the same MPs allowed for a wage freeze for public workers for two years in the national budget.
And that about 500 nurses were fired for demanding increased salaries. Moreover, it is also argued that poverty levels are still too high for government resources to be spent on already highly paid MPs compared to what most workers get in this country.
Reports that MPs get about K28, 000 per month; and that additionally, they receive about K6, 000 per week have aggravated the perception that MPs’ pay rise demands are unjustifiable.
And such proves community’s perception that MPs get a lot of money.
From the overwhelming reactions from various stakeholders including trade unions,  civil society organisations and many others opposing demands for MPs’ pay rise as reported in the press, it is clear that, for a long time now, MPs don’t consider electorate’s situations when they want to serve their (MPs) interests.
Arising from such MPs’ approach to serving their interests, most parliamentary stakeholders have reacted negatively and aggressively to such demands.
Therefore, one can argue that the reasons advanced for and timing of such demand for increased pay; and how different stakeholders have reacted to such demands prove that little do our MPs know about parliamentary PR.
One cannot be surprised to learn about such low parliamentary PR in our MPs because one PR author said PR borrows concepts and practices from other disciplines such as sociology, psychology,  economics, anthropology and politics; and if our MPs knew such a background of PR, they would have considered such disciplines before airing their demands; and in the process, they wouldn’t have demanded for their pay rise at such a crucial time when many other workers demanded a pay rise; but in vain; and when many citizens including those in their constituencies are wallowing in abject poverty.
From what President Sata has always been saying that most MPs and ministers are always in Lusaka; and not visiting their constituencies; and what Hon. Lungu said, it is true that most MPs don’t know what their electorate are going through in this country.
Such a situation proves that our MPs have low parliamentary PR practice with stakeholders.
Parliament comprises MPs, The Speaker of the  National Assembly and the republican president. National Assembly is only the Speaker of the National Assembly and the MPs. Such a composition of National Assembly or simply Parliament makes such an institution an organisation.
This means that parliament as an organisation has stakeholders who can influence its success or failure.
PR publics are groups of people or stakeholders on whom an organisation’s success or failure depends. Therefore, parliament needs support from various stakeholders for it to succeed in achieving its purpose.
In this article, the words ‘parliament’ and ‘National Assembly’ will mean the same thing.
Considering the negative reactions from various stakeholders on MPs demands, one can conclude that our MPs didn’t consult their masters before making such demands; and as a result, they left out many factors to consider before making such demands.
This proves that there is little or no mutual understanding and mutual benefit between MP and their respective constituencies on one hand; and between parliament and other stakeholders on the other hand.
Parliamentary PR is a deliberate effort for MPs, individually and collectively, to identify their respective stakeholders, understand their situation and needs; and facilitate addressing such needs through effective two-way communication and collaborative efforts to serve the interests of both parliament and those of stakeholders.
Effective parliamentary PR entails MPs understanding the needs of the electorate; and facilitating addressing such needs where possible through diligent utilisation of national and community resources.
MPs were supposed to understand that their role is that of serving the masses. They are servants of the people.
They were, therefore supposed to understand that no one could agree with and support them in demanding for pay rise when the majority of their masters  who are the citizens and electorate are not in gainful employment; or get low wages and are, therefore, wallowing in abject poverty.
MPs are supposed to know that, with a population of 13 million people where about 68 per cent of the same population are youths; out of which only one million people are in formal employment and only four million people are working in the informal sector, unemployment and poverty levels are too high to bear with.
And those who are in formal employment receive far less than the legislated minimum wage, while the price of food, shelter, education, health, transport and electricity have been are skyrocketing.
Such high unemployment levels and cost of living have led to low and poor housing, inadequate clean and safe water, poor hygiene and sanitation in many citizens.
High poverty levels among the majority of people have created social vices which include youth delinquency, drug abuse, prostitution, criminality and many other moral decay related activities.
These are issues which those opposing MPs’ pay rise know and are concerned about which our MPs are also supposed to be concerned about.
And if each MP and the whole parliament conducted a snap survey, they would be shocked to discover that the situation in some of their respective constituencies is even worse than statistics show. Such a discovery would persuade most MPs who championed calls for their increased salaries in such a poverty-stricken situation to withdraw their claims for pay rise.
Analytically, no one is against MPs’ salary increase. What most of the citizens and other stakeholders opposing MPs’ salary increase  are concerned about are availability of resources in relation to other pressing national issues.
This makes timing of the MPs’ current demands and prudent prioritisation in allocating scarce national resources in addressing national issues not only unrealistic but also to be at great variance.
So what MPs were supposed to do in their effective Parliamentary PR was to conduct a stakeholder analysis. Analyse the stakeholders’ situations. Identify their needs, interests and expectations from MPs.
Evaluate how far each annual national budget goes in addressing critical needs of  their respective constituencies and those of the nation.
Work with the respective stakeholders in prioritizing community development related projects and in mobilising and utilising national and community resources to address respective needs.
If in each term an MP was and is in office, all elected leaders worked in this fashion, high unemployment and high poverty levels would have been things of the past in this country; especially when one considers many rich natural resources this country has.
Therefore, it would be more helpful if our MPs used such strategies to improve electorate’s standards of living before they demand for their increased salaries.
Effective parliamentary PR is representative democracy is serving the interests of the electorate as masters of elected representatives; and not to serve themselves.
Not until our MPs understand and practice effective parliamentary PR will high unemployment and high poverty levels reduce in our country.
[The author is a PR Trainer and Consultant]
For comments and ideas, contact:
Cell: 0967/0977 450151
E-mail:sycoraxtndhlovu@yahoo.co.uk