PATRIOTIC Front (PF) information and publicity chairperson Frank Bwalya’s remarks on the United Party for National Development (UPND) Members of Parliament (MPs’)  failure to develop their constituencies should not be taken lightly.
The UPND MPs have for some time now taken a laissez faire attitude, especially those from Southern Province when it comes to developing their areas because of the voting pattern which they have enjoyed over the years.
The UPND has enjoyed at least some edge in the Southern Province over the PF in previous general elections and now the ruling party is making remarkable inroads.
Southern Province has been typically the most competitive region and usually backs the UPND since its inception.
But the laxity the UPND MPs have been exhibiting will not help them sustain their edge to in next year’s general elections due to their MPs’ failure to develop their constituencies using the Constituency Development Funds (CDF).
This is why Father Bwalya is challenging those MPs who had served two terms from their strongholds to cite any meaningful developments they have executed in the areas to justify their re-election in the forthcoming elections.
The CDF, which now stands at K1.3 million per constituency, is a Government intervention aimed at financing micro-community-based projects to alleviate poverty.
Despite such cash injection, the UPND MPs have not shown commitment to developing their constituencies.
It must be realised that MPs are important stakeholders in the development of their various constituencies, hence the need to remain alive to the needs of their respective constituencies and execution of realistic and tangible projects that will benefit the people.
However, with the current disappointing scenario, come 2016, they risk losing out.
Father Bwalya’s wise counsel does not only go to opposition MPs, but ruling party MPs as well who have shunned their constituencies since being elected.
They risk not being adopted or even re-elected because the people want to see development get down to the lowest level according to the Government’s targets.
The most interesting questions about an election are not concerned with who won but with why people voted the way they did or what the implications of the results were.
These questions are not always easily answered.
Looking only at the campaign events and incidents will not suffice. The unique aspects of the election must be blended with a more general understanding of electoral behaviour to create a full explanation that will compel people to vote for the same people again.
It is, therefore, prudent for all MPs not to base their hopes of re-election on previous yardsticks, but to review their performance and see whether or not they fulfilled their campaign promises to the electorate.