|
Campaigns, water projects and candidate’s vote chances
2005-10-25 06:56:07
By Guardian Correspondent
Part of what makes a candidate eligible for returning to Parliament, if he is an incumbent MP, is ability to take water projects to various villages.
Of all infrastructure requirements in villages, from roads to schools and dispensaries, there is a particular attachment to how far water projects were enhanced during that parliamentary stewardship or incumbency.
It is as if this aspect was really a result of an MP’s efforts, different from bigger projects.
In one such effort in Dodoma region, it was reported that the projects being inaugurated cover two districts out of the six districts of the region, and of the two, several villages were selected.
That is where problems arise, in relation to reducing poverty by soft loans from the World Bank, or making each village water project dependent on the World Bank.
How many such projects can the bank finance in a year, and how are beneficiaries picked?
Definitely there are other aid agencies and at times civic groups, associations funded by all sorts of activist groups in the developed countries.
But a casual glance at the data at times compiled by contestants for Parliament or councilor positions is salutary.
In many such zones (district, constituency, ward) one counts from zero to a few installations, be it for water, schools, etc.
The one exception is schools (primary education) as it was a major donor-driven scheme meeting criteria of equity since it is taken up practically everywhere.
For all other donor driven projects, or where paltry local sums are now being sought for in terms of ’development expenditure’ (though for years this has taken less than ten per cent of total local funds in the budget), no such equity exists.
In that case, two villages might lack water, and one village for one reason gets in facility in 2001, and another perhaps in 2008 if at all, since after all, no plan exists for all villages to get clean water.
The so-called Millennium Development Goals set a slippery target of half this and half that, by 2015…
Just how the village for which a water project will be put up, or a school, might often relate to criteria other than need, or intensity of such need, and this impression is noticed in election politics.
It works to the disfavour of parliamentarians who do not make it to the cabinet, who have a tough fight on their hands to get elected, unless they somehow convinced donors to ’bring’ this or that water project.
And it can be imagined that they know where their core areas of support might be, or any other criteria to select a village.
The politics of selecting projects for World Bank funding or other donor initiatives is part of what goes into battles of nominating a candidate, and then the campaign, each passing general elections.
An incumbent MP, and especially for this year even veteran cabinet ministers have in a number of instances found it difficult to assure their nominations to come back to Parliament, is judged quite significantly on this score.
Where it was not thus possible for him to ’bring’ projects, or took it to less influential locations, might lose out.
Much of this battle is conducted within the ruling party for the simple reason that in many areas it is a hegemonic party, though the fight can get out of its hands.
For instance if the incumbent MP has the confidence of district party leaders and executive generally, he stands little chance of finding it hard to get nominated.
On the basis of how far there is a real groundswell of opposition to how far he had succeeded in ’bringing’ projects to the district or some influential areas within the constituency, notables can shift to opposition.
Thus much of what is called ’voter education’ is a bit of theatre in the sense of making it possible for so many people (of all walks of life) to be involved in one way or another to talk about elections.
It has a marginal influence on the voting process itself, in the sense that people are constantly reminded to choose parties and their policies, by listening to what their candidates say in campaigns, but the real structure of issues is different.
The basic issue is whether the current MP should come back, whether CCM feels he should go, and which of the wards or divisions feel he didn’t bring ’enough’ projects.
But no one talks about this aspect of things, whereas it is the first basic input into nominations, etc.
One can thus watch and figure out in each constituency, the level of consensus as to how far the incumbent MP is eligible for being nominated again.
Where there is total consensus among wards and divisions that his record is satisfactory, a consensus will arise in CCM.
Chances of opposition making inroads are not just slim, but a contentious fight within the ruling party also become unlikely as the incumbent isn’t open to attack on the usual front.
Where there is no consensus among the wards and divisions as to the MP’s record, then an open situation arises, but the manner of its fight will then depend on loyalties that the MP has generated.
If he succeeded to alienate virtually everyone, then he loses the CCM nomination without much of a fight or divisions, as a consensus may arise on a different person.
If not, a fragmented environment arises, either within CCM, or with opposition.
Intense probing is also possible for election researchers as to how consensus is built for a removal of an incumbent MP, how far it depends on his ability to express himself, and to what extent ’people’ make up their own mind.
Are ’political committees,’ those feared organs of security issues and development at the same time part of that process?
Or are their verdicts discussed in secret in party executive committee and used to feed rumours rather than by a transparent process? Is it possible that transparency enters nominations?
|
