Of David Cameron pledges and bad politics

A lot of celebration has been made out of financial pledges that Britain, through Prime Minister David Cameron, has made to Malawi, through President Joyce Banda.

More pledges, like they have always been, will be expected. The fact that this time they have been made through the lips of Cameron, himself, does not change the fact that they remain what they are: mere pledges like the ones before them.

A little schooling is needed here, lest some people blow their roof tops in merry. Whether the pledge is made by the Prime Minister, a minister or a mere official of a donor country makes no difference. All these make these pledges on behalf of their government. It is the decision of their government, through their parliament, to make appropriations towards these pledges. It is not like because Cameron has made the pledge, so he will take money from his pocket. No! The money that is used to meet these pledges is drawn on the Consolidated Account of the donor government. It is tax payers money.

Before the celebrations turn viral, it is worth remembering that since as far as the history of this country can remember, plenty of pledges have been made, not only by the British Government, and plenty of these pledges have never been fulfilled to this date.

So as some people wax lyrical about these fresh pledges, can they ask Treasury to provide details about whether similar pledges made by Andrew Mitchell (former British Minister for International Development) have since been fulfilled.

Because if they have not been fulfilled, which is very likely as indications even from Mitchell himself suggested, there is no cause for the celebrations currently going on among supporters of Amayi.

Anyone who is familiar with Treasury knows the dangers of celebrating too soon at every pledge that is made because historically non fulfillment of pledges by donors is the devil that always gnaws at the implementation of government budgets.

Most budgets of various administrations of the Malawi government have run stranded because of the gaps and loopholes that are left in the cash flow because of the habit of donors to default on their pledges.

One would only have to go back to the pledges that G7 countries make at the end of their summits towards the fight against poverty in poor countries and see how many of those promises are fulfilled.

While we are at it, it is said good politics makes good economics. The politics that continues to be perpetuated by succeeding administrations in Malawi does not augur well for the donor money to make any meaningful difference on the people it is intended for.

This is because if it is not corruption, the money ends up clearing the mess caused by the country’s leaders. For example at the moment, because of bad politics President Banda has already spent her annual budget through her endless travels to campaign, while her decisions to dismiss people because they are not politically correct has created the need for them to be compensated.

In the end, when the money comes it is absorbed into cleaning these excesses, leaving the poor person hurtling further down the poverty dungeon.

Therefore before the politically motivated expenditures are stopped, the impact of donor in flows will never be felt by the common man.