|
ZIMBABWE has witnessed its first strike of all civil servants.
Civil servants have patiently waited for the Inclusive Government to recognise their plight, as they struggle to survive on an average salary of US$150 a month.
Every month a civil servant has to choose between either feeding the family or paying rent. Utilities cost at least US$90 a month. More often utilities cost more than the whole month’s salary. Telephones and medical help have become unaffordable luxuries.
Civil servants have been offered salary increases of between US$2 and US$27 a month, on the grounds that the government is broke and cannot afford anything better. Is this true?
The 2010 Budget totalled US$2 250 million, of which US$600 million (excluding pensions) comprised salaries. More than a third of the total budget — US$810 million, consists of donor funds.
The government has thus reserved 41.7% of its own funds of US$1 440 for salaries. The 2009 salary budget was US$385.7 million (including pensions).
Thus there was an increase of US$214 million for salaries, a 55% increase. If civil servants were given a 55% pay increase, this would come to an average of US$225 a month, a low salary, but substantial enough for survival.
It is therefore surprising that civil servants are being offered such dismal pay increases.
They are to be given housing and transport allowances of US$9 each. What type of housing and what type of transport costs US$9 a month?
We are in the dark as to why the government cannot award civil servants the pay package announced under the 2010 budget at the very least. There is need for more transparency.
One reason may be that the government has decided to pay the armed forces more than the rest of the civil service, as starving armed soldiers are very dangerous.
We have not been informed about this, so it is in the field of conjecture.
We have, however, seen and heard sounds of disaffection from the armed forces, such as the reported theft of RBZ Governor’s chickens, attacks on civilians accused of causing inflation, and the endemic requirement to pay a US$5 bribe every time you are stopped by the police. These are minor infractions, but they may grow if our armed forces remain underpaid.
Another reason may be an expansion of the size of the civil service.
We have already heard that the 13 000 plus Zanu PF militia illegally appointed as “youth officers” are now having civil service posts created for them or are being appointed into any vacant civil service post available. The illegal militia will soon be a legal militia, and will be found in many more ministries than before, despite the fact that the Public Service Commission is under an MDC-T minister.
An increase in the size of the civil service will of course mean that there is less to provide for the genuine long-serving civil servants. The only way to approach this is for the Public Service Commission to declare a freeze on additional post creation. This is not being done.
One clear reason for the shortage of funds is that the government is over-bloated with 32 ministries, a cabinet of 36, and over 60 ministers and deputy ministers.
A number of ministries are duplicates, for example with two ministries sharing agriculture, two ministries sharing education, two ministries sharing information, two ministries sharing foreign affairs, several ministries sharing water development, etc., etc.
If ministries which received less than US$5 million as a budget in 2010 were joined together with other related ministries, there would be fourteen fewer ministries — 18 instead of 32 ministries!
This would be an enormous saving. Having fewer ministries would make the government much more efficient, as well as saving lots of money. It would enable ministers, deputy ministers and officials to work more co-operatively rather than behaving as bitter and mutually destructive rivals.
However, the Global Political Agreement (GPA) is based on the concept of sharing privileges, and the more ministries the better. This is definitely costing Zimbabwe a lot in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, not to say in paying the bloated civil service much too little.
Another way of solving this problem is to make savings by cutting out luxury expenditures. The Foreign Affairs budget has increased from US$28.7 million to US$42.4 million, a 47.7% increase.
Foreign travel, which was US$28.6 million in 2009 needs to be drastically cut, in line with the needed financial austerity measures.
Cutting the number of luxury vehicles, such as the much loved Mercedes Benz, could bring about a major saving. And why should ministers now have two cars?
Zimbabwe should follow the lead of other Sadc countries where ministers are given generous loans to buy their own cars, and are paid for subsistence for travelling on business.
Ministers are more likely to use their cars more carefully if they owned them anyway. Probably US$50 million could be saved to enable the government to pay its civil servants more.
One way of solving this problem of having too many civil servants being paid too little would be to increase the amount of money allocated for civil service salaries from US$600 million to say US$650 million.
This will average US$2 826 a year or US$235 a month. This would increase the wage bill from 41.2% to 45.1% of the 2010 Budget (excluding donor funds).
Is this a good idea? Is this good for the economy, for example? It may be a good idea in that civil servants will be spending their money inside the country, and their pay increase would in fact be an additional investment into our economy.
The suspension of customs duties on “basic” commodities could provide more income to the government, whilst at the same time helping to boost local production.
The government has decided to go against the business community in this regard, but it may be that the business community knows better.
If the waiving of customs duty was retained for salt, sugar, maize, rice, seeds and fertilizer, we might have a win-win situation of boosting local productivity, whilst earning more money through customs duties.
In 2008, the latest figures published, there were 201 000 civil servants. We know there has been a big increase since 2008. In 1990 the figure was 181 402 civil servants.
This gives an additional 20 000 civil servants in two decades. I think it is generally recognised that the civil service was much more efficient in the 1980s and 1990s than today.
The bloating of ministries has clearly led to more inefficiency, especially in view of the fact that so little is left for infrastructure, equipment, transport and materials which can allow civil servants to do their job more effectively.
Civil servants in 1990 averaged a pay of about US$500 a month, as compared to the present US$150. If the government were to return to a smaller and more efficient number of civil servants, it will be possible to increase their salaries more substantially.
Instead the civil service has been used as a form of patronage, but the negative side of patronage is inefficient and underpaid civil servants.
Having 20 000 fewer civil servants would entail a saving of US$36 million per annum (at a salary of US$150 a month). Having 40 000 fewer civil servants would entail a saving of US$72 million per annum!
Another approach is to separate civil servants into different commissions, as has happened to Health and Security workers.
For example, education workers could be employed through an Education Service Commission. This would allow more flexibility. Education staff number about 100 000, the rest of the civil service another 100 000, whilst the armed forces are estimated at 30 000. Separate commissions will also enable the different sectors to respond to the different professional needs.
In conclusion, civil servants deserve to be treated much better. They are as important to the health and survival of the nation as the armed forces. By treating them badly we will ruin the country.
BY FAY CHUNG
 |
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
