Opinion
Analysis
2005 could be a big year in
the fight against poverty
“WE HAVE the cash, we have the drugs, we have the science—but do we have the
will? Do we have the will to make poverty history?” That is quite a question:
big, crucial and—so long as “we” is defined broadly—entirely valid. And it is a
question to which—according to Bono, the rock star and modern-day prophet who
posed it—the coming year will go a long way towards providing an answer.
In 2005, poverty reduction is scheduled to dominate the global policymaking
agenda as never before. First will come some visionary reports, led by Jeffrey
Sachs’s study for the United Nations (in January) and Tony Blair’s Commission
for Africa (probably in March). In July, if Mr Blair does not unexpectedly lose
a British general election in the meantime, he will host a G8 summit of
rich-country leaders which will focus on tackling poverty, especially in Africa.
In September, the UN will hold a special General Assembly Summit to review
progress towards the Millennium Development Goals agreed in 2000, which include
a commitment to halve the proportion of the world’s population living in poverty
by 2015. As progress has been slow, there are likely to be plenty of new
initiatives and promises of fresh action. In December, it is hoped, the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting in Hong Kong will bring the year to a
triumphant close with the announcement of a deal to further liberalise global
trade in ways that should give a big boost to the economies of poor countries.
For so much high-level attention to be paid to the needs of the poor is
unambiguously welcome. So, too, is the spirit of optimism with which
policymakers and campaigners view next year. Yet it does not take a cynic to
wonder whether so much international summitry might, in the end, generate far
more hot air than action. There is a genuine danger of this. So before giddy
rhetoric gives way to disappointment, it is worth asking what battles,
realistically, might be won in the war on poverty in 2005.
The servant soiree
How to solve the biggest issue in modern
politics
FORGET Iraq and budget deficits. The most serious political problem on both
sides of the Atlantic is none of these. It is a difficulty that has dogged the
ruling classes for millennia. It is the servant problem.
In Britain David Blunkett, the home secretary, has resigned over an
embarrassment (or one of many embarrassments, in a story involving his
ex-girlfriend, her husband, two pregnancies and some DNA) concerning a visa for
a Filipina nanny employed by his mistress (see article). His office speeded it
through for reasons unconnected to the national shortage of unskilled labour. Mr
Blunkett resigned ahead of a report by Sir Alan Budd, an economist who is
investigating the matter at the government’s request.
In America Bernard Kerik, the president’s nominee for the Department of Homeland
Security, withdrew last week because he had carelessly employed a Mexican nanny
whose Play-Doh skills were in better order than her paperwork (see article). Mr
Kerik also remembered that he hadn’t paid her taxes. The nominee has one or two
other “issues” (an arrest warrant in 1998, and allegations of dodgy business
dealings and extra-marital affairs). But employing an illegal nanny would
probably have been enough to undo him, as it has several other cabinet and
judicial appointees in recent years.
There is an easy answer to the servant problem—obvious to economists, if not to
the less clear-sighted. Perhaps Sir Alan, a dismal scientist of impeccable
rationality, will be thoughtful enough to point it out in his report.
Parents are not the only people who have difficulty getting visas for workers.
All employers face restrictive immigration policies which raise labour costs.
Some may respond by trying to fiddle the immigration system, but most deal with
the matter by exporting jobs. In the age of the global economy, the solution to
the servant problem is simple: rather than importing the nanny, offshore the
children.
back
to headline
Needed: Reforms in the legal system
By Evarist Kagaruki
Tanzania’s constitution clearly spells out the separation of powers
between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature.
It vests legislative powers in parliament, executive powers in the president and
judiciary in the courts. But, sometimes the demarcations between the three are
not easily distinguishable, especially as far as the functions of the
Attorney-General are concerned.
The Attorney-General is the Chief Legal Adviser of the government. He carries
heavy responsibilities and enormous powers conferred on him by the constitution.
Without usurping the authority of the court he may order the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP) to drop a case in court under a “nolle prosequi” ( a
statement made to the effect that the prosecutor will not proceed further with
the charges).
This is in accordance with section 91 (1) of the penal code which empowers the
DPP to withdraw charges for lack of evidence, but at the same time gives the
state mandate to re-arrest the person set free by the court. But rarely in this
country do suspects who have been set free under the said clause get
re-arrested!
A great number of people appreciate the rationale behind the nolle prosequi.
They know, for example, that without it courts would be overwhelmed and
overburdened by cases which might otherwise end up being dismissed for lack of
sufficient evidence, thus unnecessarily increasing costs of administering
justice. However, the circumstances under which some cases involving serious
charges have been withdrawn by the DPP have raised many an eye brow and bagged a
number of intriguing questions.
One of such cases was the murder of a Dar es Salaam girl, Conjela Ulikaye,
involving two British soldiers, Nigel David and Brett Richard, as suspects. The
two were set free after the charges against them were dropped under a nolle
prosequi by the DPP on the grounds that the state did not have sufficient
widence against them! This has caused indignation among the breadth of the
citizenry.
I think that there is something wrong with the manner in which the case in
question has been handled. The DPP’s decision to set free the two suspects does
not reflect equality of treatment before the law, considering that
investigations and hearing of murder cases in this country take a very long time
(sometimes years) to complete, thus causing the murder suspects to languish in
remand prison! It is in the Tanzanian prison cells occupied by people facing
charges of murder where you can find the worst victims of delayed (and denied)
justice.
Many people are wondering why it has taken such incredibly short time for the
prosecution to “complete” the investigations and establish that there was” no
sufficient evidence” against the British citizens suspected of killing Ulikaye!
This was a murder case like any other, and the public had expected to see the
law take its course. Why has this particular case been treated differently?
Personally, I can not harbour any thought - not even remotely - that the charges
against David and Richard were dropped because the two are “white”. To think so
would be not only simple-minded, but utterly racist! My honest belief, and
certainly the belief of many Tanzanians, is that our criminal justice system is
colour blind. Ours is the direct opposite of a situation which obtains in
Britain and the USA, for example, where the whole legal system was fraut with
racial prejudices against the Black people, and where some white lawyers had
little respect for their Black colleagues.
The general assumption among the public, in the absence of any official
explanation, is, as one reader opined in this paper last week, that the two
Britons were set free perhaps for the sake of Tanzania - Britain relations!
Basing on that assumption, which could be wrong), one would be inclined to
conclude that the DPP’s nolle prosequi in that case had a taint of “political
interference”, which implies interference by the executive in the due process of
the law. We need to be convinced otherwise!
Regrettably, the DPP’s nolle prosequi in any criminal case is normally
unaccompanied by an explanation as to why such a decision (of dropping charges)
had been taken. The DPP is not obliged to explain his decision to the public. He
lives them to make their own conclusion! Why this was meant to be so, I don’t
know. All I know is that many good-meaning citizens of this country sincerely
believe that the powers of the DPP are rather “superfluous”. And this is the
point we shall attempt to discuss next week.