Budget padding: What the real question ought to be
By Uju Okeahialam
The discussion about budget padding in Nigeria has always drawn the ire of the public against the National Assembly; how they would have added “Pork” to the executive’s budget proposals. As much as this piece is not aimed at canonizing corruption, it opines that the ire misses a very important question. Before stating what that principal question ought to be, it will be important to know what a budget represents in the administration and wellbeing of a nation.
A budget is more than a snapshot of the policy drive of a government vis-à-vis what she aims to generate as revenue and what she aims to spend for the good of her citizens. Once this budget is passed by the legislature, that has the power of the purse and signed (into law) by the executive that has the power of enforcement, it becomes a law of the land — the deviation from which can be considered an impeachable offense. This shows the sacredness of the budget and why its formulation and crafting should uphold the sacredness of the trust expected from whomever prepares and presents it without a sense of discrimination.
When the executive prepares a budget, they do not begin to implement it without the oversight and approval of the people’s representatives in the Congress. The involvement of the Congress in this process, it is good to note, is not only to approve funding for the budget, as presented, but to certify that what was proposed to be funded is faithful to the integral good of the nation. It is also to certify that there is a balance between what will be earned and what will be expended. Again, it is to make sure that the gain from what is proposed is representative of all the segments of peoples, regions, institutions, and organs of the nation. The reason for all these is simply because it is the patrimony and the future of the nation that are at stake. Therefore, no part of the people’s representatives should be blindsided in the process. Worse still any sense of willfully shortchanging any part of the polity is wicked and criminal—to say the least.
READ ALSO: Tax Reform Bills and Akpabio’s brinkmanship
Practically, no human being knows it all or sees it all—only the attentiveness to all, will cause the best for all to emerge. A pastor once told his staff: “Don’t be upset when a church member points out something not taken care of. Since we all take particular routes, in and out; there will always be something the other persons will discover because they take other routes, in and out. Therefore, don’t take their observation personal, but as helps in order to be more effective.”
Similarly, the members of the executive are like those church staff who come to work following the same routes. Those routes are the care of their party and favored interests. The Congress, on the other hand, are the other members of the church who come to church following different other routes. Their observations of things not captured in the budget, as presented by the executive, should not be taken personal as attempts to denigrate the executive, on the other hand, they should be taken as insights, add-ups, or reformulations to make the work of the executive better. Therefore, instead of igniting ire against the legislature by accusing them of padding the budget, the real question to ask should be: What did the budget ignore that a Congressman wants to see remedied by add-ups?
Recently, a Senator representing a state in the Southeast pointed out the colossal omission of the Southeastern region in the budget for the Ministry of Water Resources whereas the executive’s proposal allocated over sixty billion naira to one other region alone. If that Senator has the clout to cause the addition of a similar amount to benefit the region he represents in the budget, will it not balloon the budget? It surely will. And should it be called a case of padding or a case of justice? Imagine if some other lopsidedness are littered in the executive’s proposal and more Congressmen insist that the places they represent be accommodated as well in the share of the commonwealth, the eventual proposal would become unimaginable and inoperable. At that, the only language left for the executive to speak, in order to save face, is that the legislature padded up the budget that it cannot be funded and operated. With this act of gaslighting, the people’s ire against the Congress is solidified.
But come to think of it, Congressmen as representatives of their people are the primary lobbyists for their people who see things different from the way the executive sees. From the church analogy presented earlier, they come to the congress from different routes that are not the same as those taken by members of the executive. They are the best, ordinarily, to speak about those they represent. For lack of words, they ought to be the best to attract developmental and governmental benefits for their people. Just as the church staff are employed to serve the good of all who come to church, it is not an over exaggerating to say that those others who come to church do so because of what they need from the church — their salvation. As such their complaints and what they seek to be done in the church are things that they think will facilitate their devotion and a justifiable use of their contributions to the church. In the same way, the executive, primarily exists to serve the good of the nation and should be attentive to the expressed need of the people of the nation and to justify how they apply the wealth of the nation for the good of all citizens and interests. The executive exists primarily for the good of all, while the Congressmen exist for the good of the particular people they represent. It is the absence of a judicious management of this divide that is at the heart of our dysfunctional governance.
Therefore, as long as the executive continues to bring lopsided budget proposals, so long the Congress will want to demand for the share that benefits those they represent. Secondly, as people beholden to different interests, the Congress will continue to seek “Pork” to feast the interests that propelled them when such are noticeably missing in the executive’s proposals that took care of their own myopic interests. Therefore, when you hear the attempt to demonize the Congress as padding up the budget, ask first of all, “How equitable and balanced is the executive’s budget proposal?” It is uncharitable to conclude, without interrogation, that the men and women in congress do not mean well for the polity, but acknowledging that they, like all humans, are conditioned by the needs of their limited tracks and purviews (routes). It is also to acknowledge and demand that the executive arm of government should be sensitive and open for an equitable representative proposal and the acceptance of genuine congressional input so that the temptation to include more or to give up more, for the good of all will not be negatively considered as budget padding or legislative obstruction to derail the administration. It is corruption on display when what is proposed or added-up serve not the cause of equity and justice to benefit all, but as “pork” to the delight of a few.
- Dr. Uju Okeahialam, a Catholic Priest, wrote in from Baltimore Maryland, USA
