Demagoguery  and the State of the Nation debate

After the saturation of the airways of the state controlled broadcasting media with the innumerable replays of the President’s one and a half hour State of the Nation address for nearly a whole week the week before last, it was the turn of the members of the National Assembly to make their pitch on starting the following Friday.

The first off the bat, as is customary, was the Leader of the Opposition. He started off  with what appeared to be a strong attack on the Government’s economic record but then got carried away with demagogy. His turn of phrase was a feeble attempt to give the impression that it was the Government which decided on its own to award him and his colleagues in the National Assembly huge salary increases, obscene amounts of gratuity (25%) each year based on the annual salary, another gratuity (50%) of the five previous annual salaries at the end of the five year mandate, as well as an unconstitutional pension provision on top of other perks. After having set out his ground of defence, Ramkalawan then went on to exhort the government to give the same consideration to its employees, proposing in the same breadth that if it could not, to consider reducing the salaries and allowances of the constitutional appointees.

It reality, it was Ramkalawan who gave President Michel as well as himself the perks because it is the National Assembly which approves the laws. Granted that Ramkalawan and the SNP forms a minority of less than 50% of the seats in the National Assembly, the bill would have had enough backing to see through safely from the ruling party. Nevertheless, SNP did not object to the proposal and indeed voted for it and then kept quiet about it. The demagogy of the Leader of the Opposition is glaring in his statement in that he is only reacting now because of the adverse reactions from voters. He was not arguing a point of principle. He was waffling political expediency.

The Constitution provides that the salaries and allowances of the so-called constitutional appointees be subject of an Act, unlike for other civil servants whose salaries are an employment contract with the government. Whilst the money to pay civil servants are voted on by the National Assembly each year under the Appropriations Act (better known as the budget), for the constitutional appointees this is done once, which each position or authority subject to its own act. The act can be changed periodically, as it is being done now.

The constitutional appointees are: 1) the President of the Republic, the  Vice-President, the designated Minister and Ministers; 2) the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly; 3) the Leader of the Opposition; 4) other Members of the National Assembly; 5) Justices of Appeal and other judges; 6) the Auditor General; 7) the Ombudsman; 7) the Electoral Commissioner; 8) Members of the Constitutional Appointments Authority; and 9) Members of the Public Service Appeals Board.

It is evident from the list above that there is one group among the lot which has the unique privilege of determining its own salary and that is the Members of the National Assembly.  If they had not voted yes for the bill, it would not have become law unless the Assembly had voted with a two thirds majority. Admittedly, the SPPF members comprise a majority but the record shows that the vote was in unanimity – meaning Ramkalawan and the SNP members present voted for it too. This is why we say he is demagogue when he tries to pretend that he had nothing to do with it, that it was all the government’s doing. 

In fact, the bills contain a provision for pensions which is not constitutionally correct. The Constitution makes provisions for a pension to be paid to the President of the Republic only, not to any other constitutional appointees. All others are to receive only a salary and an allowance. With the pension provisions for other constitutional appointees, the Attorney General, Mr Anthony Fernando, has once again performed a coup against the Constitution, in the same way he did with a previous amendment of the Salaries and Allowances Act for the Members of the National Assembly to create a special salary package for the Leader of Government Business. 

We did not hear a whimper of protest from the Opposition when the bill was presented for debate, either on its merit or its unconstitutionality. Indeed, had this newspaper not exposed it, very few people in Seychelles, let alone in the world would have known about it. In fact, our research found that whilst the various bills were published on 20th December, the budget book which was presented to members in early December already contained provisions for the increase even though the law had not yet been proposed.

This time, by voting in favour of the bills, Ramkalawan has caused the SNP to be the ally of the SPPF in showing contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution.

February 29, 2008
Copyright 2007: Seychelles Weekly, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles