Ground Hog Day or Edge of Tomorrow ― Thoughts on the New Economic Recovery Plan in Zambia

President Lungu (centre) at the Economic Recovery Plan. Picture Credit: Ministry of National Development Planning

When discussing government performance, I am reminded of something a family member was told during a job performance review, "We are not here to discuss the good work you do, that is why we pay you. We are here to discuss what you do not do right, coz that is not what we pay you to do." I do not entirely agree with this sentiment but think it communicates an important basis for objective criticism of public services. Discussing government performance in Zambia can be trying, especially in the current politically polarised landscape. Objective criticism from within government and from stakeholders should always be welcome.

The President of Zambia recently launched an Economic Recovery Plan (“The Plan”) and these are my initial thoughts on it.

There are two movies that define the daily loop movie genre for me, the first is Ground Hog Day and the other Edge of Tomorrow. One is a feel good romantic comedy and the other an action horror of sorts. Reading the plan gave me the impression we are living the same day over and over again or, we are reading the same documents with different covers over and over again. Posterity will judge if we are in a feel good romantic comedy or action horror.

The Plan appears to be another document acknowledging the economic challenges Zambia has faced and is therefore a step in the right direction. Well, since 2016, we have read several similar position papers, policies or plans and the country has taken similar first steps in the right direction but somehow, we end up right back at the starting line. The recently launched plan has some of the same solutions that the former Minister of Finance, Hon. Mutati proposed in the 2016 Zambia Plus Economic Recovery Plan. So what is new about it?

The Plan recognises the need for Parliamentary (this should be National Assembly) approval of debt. This is despite the fact that the Government has spent over a year trying to remove this oversight through the Constitution Amendment Bill No. 10 of 2019 or Bill. 10 as it became known. The functions of Parliament are distinct from the functions of the National Assembly. Parliament includes the President and Members of Parliament; the National Assembly includes Members of Parliament and the Speakers. Article 63 (1) of the Constitution prescribes the function of Parliament and Article 63 (2) prescribes the functions of National Assembly. Parliamentary oversight over debt contraction is done through enacting enabling and governing legislation. National Assembly oversight on the other hand is by way of National Assembly scrutiny through the committee system and voting within the House. The Plan makes a number of legislative proposals but, like many plans before it, is missing is a comprehensive description of how the proposed legislative interventions will resolve the challenges we currently face. The absence of a theoretical overview and description of how the proposed legislation would fix unsustainable debt procurement shows insincerity with regard to actually implementing reforms. Since 2016, when the Constitution of Zambia was amended to provide for National Assembly approval of debt before contraction, Parliament has enacted several laws that have a bearing on public financial management. Government has therefore had sufficient legislative opportunity to propose and enact laws to properly govern debt contraction. This is especially evident when we consider that the problems and solutions highlighted in the latest plan are not necessarily novel aside from the challenges attributed to the impact of the Corona Virus on the economy. Further, the fact that a number of the solutions proposed in the plan can be traced back to even older policy documents and plans means government has always had the tools to propose legislation to address the problems.

A particular challenge I have with the government approach in planning and policy documents, which is perhaps perpetuated by the legislative process in Zambia, is the premise that Parliament will always enact laws because the Executive wants it, constitutional amendments (Constitutional amendments require a higher threshold than simple majority) being an exception to this. This problem is probably best considered when examining the weaknesses of our Parliament. Parliament should not be a rubber stamp for legislation. The Executive that drafts the laws, National Assembly and the President should have a critical and objective review of legislative proposals before they are enacted. With regard to what an objective review of legislation is and what it would look like, a starting point would be the constitutional values and principles which are supposed to be applied in the development and implementation of policy as well as in the enactment and interpretation of laws. Each proposed provision ought to be weighed against the values and principles to ensure the values are actually applied.

The latest plan does not adequately address concerns with transparency or accountability in the management of public finance. Beyond the usual buzz phrases that have been in every policy and planning document relating to public finance, nothing seems to be improving. 2016 was a critical point for considering the content of policy documents because the Constitution after amendment in 2016 provides various values and principles (Article 8) which are to be applied in the development and implementation of State Policy (Article 9 (1) (c)). The Government needs to show actual commitment to enhancing transparency and fostering greater accountability to different stakeholders. Transparency and accountability should not be viewed as relating to external actors only, there is also need for greater internal transparency and accountability. The evidence of the lack of internal transparency and accountability can be observed from the policy incoherence across different thematic sectors. The interventions to mitigate and fight climate change in Zambia for example are undermined by the degazetting of forest reserves across the country and the seemingly blind eye turned to illegal logging in different parts of the country. Before Covid-19, the Government attributed almost all the economic downturn to climate change and its impacts. However, during that period, fighting and preventing climate change could be described as secondary in government policy development and implementation. The brand-new roads around Lusaka and many parts of the Zambia will not distract you from the hundreds of trees that have been cut to construct the new roads. The flooded new roads during the rainy seasons are a stark reminder of the inadequacy of the road infrastructure and the cost of cutting down the trees. The policy incoherence is only exacerbated by a work culture in Government that discourages both external and internal criticism. In 2016, the Attorney-General of Zambia appeared on public television and stated that Ministers should vacate office when Parliament was dissolved. However, against the advice of the Chief Legal Advisor to the Government, President Lungu was cheered on by Ministers and Deputy Ministers when he said that they should stay in office. Years later, the Attorney-General and stakeholders that called for Ministers to leave office were vindicated when the Constitutional Court declared that they held office illegally. We can only imagine how many bad decisions would have been avoided if mechanisms for vertical and horizontal accountability were enhanced and technocrats were actually listened to.

The new plan contains the generic paragraph most Zambian policy and planning documents contain stating that it will be "aligned" to existing plans and policies. The new plan specifically states that it will be aligned to the Eighth National Development Plan that is being developed. The framework for policy implementation and the realization of development plans is critical to actually achieving the goals and meeting the indicators in the policies and plans. Often lacking from policies and plans is the detail of how the policy or plan will be implemented. An example of this is the challenge faced with the implementation and oversight framework for the Seventh National Development Plan which poses both theoretical and practical challenges. Zambia has a symmetrical system of governance which means that there are clear levels of governance with the same authority at different levels and in in different geographic areas. In theory, a symmetrical system governance should be easy to implement as levels and competencies can simply be replicated in different geographic areas. However, the narrow scope that decentralisation has been implemented means that, at provincial level except Lusaka province, there is a distinct absence of critical institutions. In the capital city Lusaka, the role of provincial authorities is largely muted as national level institutions dominate policy development and implementation. This has resulted in an asymmetrical availability of resources (technical knowledge, finance, and human resource) between different provinces and districts depending on proximity to national level institutions. This can be observed by the absence of key institutions like the Attorney-General's office in peripheral provinces. I must mention here that an attempt to remedy this has been made by the appointment and secondment of lawyers from other public institutions in provinces outside Lusaka as State Advocates. However, this appears to be limited to legal representation and not the advisory services the Attorney-General's office provides. A clear structure for implementation would include clear lines of communication as well as be clear on institutional cooperation. From a policy and planning document perspective, there should be clear descriptions for how this "alignment" with other policy and planning documents will be achieved. Even more important than the description, there should be an actual integration of the different policies and plans. The result would be not only more coherence in policy development but also more coherent policy implementation. A caveat to this is that the results would largely depend on the extent that the policies influence everyday business in government departments.

Various scholars and institutions describe governance as the process of including more stakeholders in decision making. If this is the case, policy development and implementation will incorporate more stakeholders beyond the traditional ones. This is critical to Zambia achieving various development goals. More detail on how different plans and policies are aligned as well as broadening stakeholder involvement would facilitate greater stakeholder ownership and buy-in. Increasing the involvement of non-traditional actors in the policy and planning processes allows for people to ask more questions at the development and implementation stages. This is because non-traditional stakeholders will not be bogged down by the hierarchical traditions of government that do not encourage questions or accountability. I cannot imagine that the people that developed the previous economic recovery plans are different from the ones that developed the latest one. The question then would be, why repeat proposals that did not work from the last plan in the new plan? What will work this time that did not work last time?

The latest plan is thin on how exactly it will be implemented together with the Seventh National Development Plan that has a year of implementation left. The New Economic Recovery Plan is devoid of any clear description of how it will be implemented or aligned to the forthcoming Eighth National Development Plan as stated. If this latest plan contains all the same proposals for action that old plans have proposed, why the need for a fancy launch? For a government that acknowledges the economic hardships it and the Zambian people face, the Zambian government still spends big and unnecessarily. Next year, in the middle of the economic recovery plan, we will expect to see the latest vehicles bought with taxpayers’ money. We may even see several new vehicles at the next launch of an economic recovery plan where we will again discuss the same problems with the same solutions. Thereafter, procurement meetings will be held to look at the latest motor vehicle catalogue for 2022 because the 2021 vehicles would be outdated.

To achieve actual results we need genuine commitment for change from our leaders. The important decisions that are to be made should be based on honest and sound technical advise from technocrats and stakeholders. Albert Einstein said, “The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” We cannot change Zambia if we do not change how we think of resolving the challenges Zambia faces.

The plan can be downloaded here