Performance budgeting we should now be doing, linking our money or taxes to the services we are receiving. We should also have a public budget which is based on the principles of efficiency, effectiveness, equity, transparency and sustainability.
How do we know if the allocations for each Ministry and the Office of the President in the fiscal year are well spent and according to purpose- value for money? Who audits the fiscal and programmatic performance of each of these sectors? Why is the allocation to the Office of the President more than that of Ministry of Agriculture?
If we agree that children and youth form about 68 per cent of our population, and we are serious about maximising the youth dividend, why do we have lesser allocations to the Ministries of Youth and that Children, Women and Social Welfare than Ministry of Defence? What informs such decisions and how are Ministry of Defense and Office of the President contributing, with greater budgetary allocations, contributing to the realisation of our human rights, the right to live in dignity and to be free from the fears of hunger, poverty and want?
Why can’t allocations be determined not just by need or who can streneously defend their request but by actual or real needs in line with national priorities and value for money?
Why must our budgets be heavily “overheads” driven and less on programmes? Check the budget lines for each Ministry and you would see my point- a chunk of every Ministry’s budget is stashed for salaries, maintenance, vehicles, fuels, travels, per firms,
Why can’t the people actively and meaningfully participate in the entire budget processes, from the point the call circular is released to execution and to audit? Why must the national budget be prepared in “secret”, behind closed doors, far away from the people whose lives it would affect?
Our traditional form of budgeting is anachronistic and unhelpful in many aspects. The budget headings and codes and itemisation do not often help us to know exactly how much of our taxes are going into addressing issues affecting children, persons with disabilities, women, etc. This makes accountability work and transparency a lot more difficult.
A national budget is second only to the Constitution in importance. A national budget is supposed to be the tool for the realisation of the rights of the people, the fulfillment of the State’s obligations to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights of its citizens. How can such obligations be fulfilled when entities unconnected to the people’s desire to live in dignity are given greater allocations than those which are set forth to fulfil our rights?
A national budget which has a deficit between what is expected to be generated internally and foreign support or aid expected, is more about “overheads” and which is not “performance” oriented, cannot be expected to realise the human rights of her people. Until we change the way we do things, unless we demand performance, accountability, transparency and people’s participation in our budgetary processes, forget any meaningful development through our national budget.
Not our budgeting style Mr Drammeh. You should try to be less technical and more cultural. We as a people from top to bottom, love and believe in the power and audacity of mendacity. We delight in magical thinking and untruths.The precise reason why everything falls apart. Our problem is our attitudes. Our lies and our bad intentions. We spend what we don’t have and borrow to survive. We have no plans for the future, and are content to die as slaves beholding to our benefactors. Those who you speak to have no clue and some that do care not to listen.
Well, attitudes do certainly play a part in how we do things, and The Gambian People do have some unhelpful attitudes, but I stil think Mr Drammeh has a point.
A budget that is almost entirely consumed by overheads and dependent on over 50% for its revenue on external sources is not one that can really bring about development and social wellbeing. So, we do need rethinking of how to our budgets.
Thanks
If you do not have the money, you spend wisely/sparingly on what matters. They tell us that they inherited a bankrupt treasury, but their actions speak a different language to any observer.
Clearly, they spend what they don’t have and either borrow or beg to carry on spending irresponsibly.
I cannot solve this problem: Why does the laying of the foundation stones of the road and bridge building projects have to be such a lavish affair? I hope it is not coming from the Contingencies fund.
A change in attitude is needed to help build the Gambia.
Is Barrow trying to get as much money as possible so that he can fund his new party?
Quote @Sandi: “I cannot solve this problem: Why does the laying of the foundation stones of the road and bridge building projects have to be such a lavish affair?”
Good observation, Sandi. I think the simple answer is that they don’t see it as a problem. It is just the way things are done in our country. It’s been the practice and culture in government since independence.
It’s not just the laying of foundation stones. When you look at other things :like Office of First Lady, travel allowances, vehicle allocations, presidential convoys, budgeting, public functions, political meetings etc, you see the same, old pattern; even down to undertaking supplementary expenditures before the Supplementary Appropriate Bill is brought to the National Assembly for approval, a clear violation of the law (I understand).
What this shows is that many people seek political office, whether through organised opposition parties or not, but they don’t really offer genuine alternatives to what they oppose, and this is where the Gambian electorate is failing. We are not scritinising those seeking political office enough to know what they would do differently from what they are opposing. Obviously, indulging in fanfare is a way of “drugging” the people to mask the fact that they are clueless. People get so “intoxicated” with all this fanfare that they can’t ask the questions about why things are the way they are.