Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 97115 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
ETRD EAGR ETTC EAID ECON EFIN ECIN EINV ELAB EAIR ENRG EPET EWWT ECPS EIND EMIN ELTN EC ETMIN EUC EZ ET ELECTIONS ENVR EU EUN EG EINT ER ECONOMICS ES EMS ENIV EEB EN ECE ECOSOC EK ENVIRONMENT EFIS EI EWT ENGRD ECPSN EXIM EIAD ERIN ECPC EDEV ENGY ECTRD EPA ESTH ECCT EINVECON ENGR ERTD EUR EAP EWWC ELTD EL EXIMOPIC EXTERNAL ETRDEC ESCAP ECO EGAD ELNT ECONOMIC ENV ETRN EIAR EUMEM ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID EREL ECOM ECONETRDEAGRJA ETCC ETRG ECONOMY EMED ETR ENERG EITC EFINOECD EURM EENG ERA EXPORT ENRD ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EGEN EBRD EVIN ETRAD ECOWAS EFTA ECONETRDBESPAR EGOVSY EPIN EID ECONENRG EDRC ESENV ETT EB ENER ELTNSNAR ECHEVARRIA ETRC EPIT EDUC ESA EFI ENRGY ESCI EE EAIDXMXAXBXFFR EETC ECIP EIAID EIVN EBEXP ESTN EING EGOV ETRA EPETEIND ELAN ETRDGK EAIDRW ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ENVI ELN EAG EPCS EPRT EPTED ETRB EUM EAIDS EFIC EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM EAIDAR ESF EIDN ELAM EDU EV EAIDAF ECN EDA EXBS EINTECPS ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EPREL EAC EINVEFIN ETA EAGER EINDIR ECA ECLAC ELAP EITI EUCOM ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID EARG ELDIN EINVKSCA ENNP EFINECONCS EFINTS ECCP ETC EAIRASECCASCID EINN ETRP EAIDNI EFQ ECOQKPKO EGPHUM EBUD ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ENERGY ELB EINDETRD EMI ECONEFIN EIB EURN ETRDEINVTINTCS EIN EFIM ETIO ELAINE EMN EATO EWTR EIPR EINVETC ETTD ETDR EIQ ECONCS EPPD ENRGIZ EISL ESPINOSA ELEC EAIG ESLCO EUREM ENTG ERD EINVECONSENVCSJA EEPET EUNCH ECINECONCS ETRO ETRDECONWTOCS ECUN EFND EPECO EAIRECONRP ERGR ETRDPGOV ECPN ENRGMO EPWR EET EAIS EAGRE EDUARDO EAGRRP EAIDPHUMPRELUG EICN ECONQH EVN EGHG ELBR EINF EAIDHO EENV ETEX ERNG ED
KMDR KPAO KPKO KJUS KCRM KGHG KFRD KWMN KDEM KTFN KHIV KGIC KIDE KSCA KNNP KHUM KIPR KSUM KISL KIRF KCOR KRCM KPAL KWBG KN KS KOMC KSEP KFLU KPWR KTIA KSEO KMPI KHLS KICC KSTH KMCA KVPR KPRM KE KU KZ KFLO KSAF KTIP KTEX KBCT KOCI KOLY KOR KAWC KACT KUNR KTDB KSTC KLIG KSKN KNN KCFE KCIP KGHA KHDP KPOW KUNC KDRL KV KPREL KCRS KPOL KRVC KRIM KGIT KWIR KT KIRC KOMO KRFD KUWAIT KG KFIN KSCI KTFIN KFTN KGOV KPRV KSAC KGIV KCRIM KPIR KSOC KBIO KW KGLB KMWN KPO KFSC KSEAO KSTCPL KSI KPRP KREC KFPC KUNH KCSA KMRS KNDP KR KICCPUR KPPAO KCSY KTBT KCIS KNEP KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNNB KGCC KINR KPOP KMFO KENV KNAR KVIR KDRG KDMR KFCE KNAO KDEN KGCN KICA KIMMITT KMCC KLFU KMSG KSEC KUM KCUL KMNP KSMT KCOM KOMCSG KSPR KPMI KRAD KIND KCRP KAUST KWAWC KTER KCHG KRDP KPAS KITA KTSC KPAOPREL KWGB KIRP KJUST KMIG KLAB KTFR KSEI KSTT KAPO KSTS KLSO KWNN KPOA KHSA KNPP KPAONZ KBTS KWWW KY KJRE KPAOKMDRKE KCRCM KSCS KWMNCI KESO KWUN KPLS KIIP KEDEM KPAOY KRIF KGICKS KREF KTRD KFRDSOCIRO KTAO KJU KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KEN KO KNEI KEMR KKIV KEAI KWAC KRCIM KWCI KFIU KWIC KCORR KOMS KNNO KPAI KBWG KTTB KTBD KTIALG KILS KFEM KTDM KESS KNUC KPA KOMCCO KCEM KRCS KWBGSY KNPPIS KNNPMNUC KWN KERG KLTN KALM KCCP KSUMPHUM KREL KGH KLIP KTLA KAWK KWMM KVRP KVRC KAID KSLG KDEMK KX KIF KNPR KCFC KFTFN KTFM KPDD KCERS KMOC KDEMAF KMEPI KEMS KDRM KEPREL KBTR KEDU KNP KIRL KNNR KMPT KISLPINR KTPN KA KJUSTH KPIN KDEV KTDD KAKA KFRP KWNM KTSD KINL KJUSKUNR KWWMN KECF KWBC KPRO KVBL KOM KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KEDM KFLD KLPM KRGY KNNF KICR KIFR KM KWMNCS KAWS KLAP KPAK KDDG KCGC KID KNSD KMPF KPFO KDP KCMR KRMS KNPT KNNNP KTIAPARM KDTB KNUP KPGOV KNAP KNNC KUK KSRE KREISLER KIVP KQ KTIAEUN KPALAOIS KRM KISLAO KWM KFLOA
PHUM PINR PTER PGOV PREL PREF PL PM PHSA PE PARM PINS PK PUNE PO PALESTINIAN PU PBTS PROP PTBS POL POLI PA PGOVZI POLMIL POLITICAL PARTIES POLM PD POLITICS POLICY PAS PMIL PINT PNAT PV PKO PPOL PERSONS PING PBIO PH PETR PARMS PRES PCON PETERS PRELBR PT PLAB PP PAK PDEM PKPA PSOCI PF PLO PTERM PJUS PSOE PELOSI PROPERTY PGOVPREL PARP PRL PNIR PHUMKPAL PG PREZ PGIC PBOV PAO PKK PROV PHSAK PHUMPREL PROTECTION PGOVBL PSI PRELPK PGOVENRG PUM PRELKPKO PATTY PSOC PRIVATIZATION PRELSP PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PMIG PREC PAIGH PROG PSHA PARK PETER POG PHUS PPREL PS PTERPREL PRELPGOV POV PKPO PGOVECON POUS PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PWBG PMAR PREM PAR PNR PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PARMIR PGOVGM PHUH PARTM PN PRE PTE PY POLUN PPEL PDOV PGOVSOCI PIRF PGOVPM PBST PRELEVU PGOR PBTSRU PRM PRELKPAOIZ PGVO PERL PGOC PAGR PMIN PHUMR PVIP PPD PGV PRAM PINL PKPAL PTERE PGOF PINO PHAS PODC PRHUM PHUMA PREO PPA PEPFAR PGO PRGOV PAC PRESL PORG PKFK PEPR PRELP PREFA PNG PGOVPHUMKPAO PRELECON PINOCHET PFOR PGOVLO PHUMBA PRELC PREK PHUME PHJM POLINT PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PGOVE PHALANAGE PARTY PECON PEACE PROCESS PLN PRELSW PAHO PEDRO PRELA PASS PPAO PGPV PNUM PCUL PGGV PSA PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PGIV PRFE POGOV PEL PBT PAMQ PINF PSEPC POSTS PHUMPGOV PVOV PHSAPREL PROLIFERATION PENA PRELTBIOBA PIN PRELL PGOVPTER PHAM PHYTRP PTEL PTERPGOV PHARM PROTESTS PRELAF PKBL PRELKPAO PKNP PARMP PHUML PFOV PERM PUOS PRELGOV PHUMPTER PARAGRAPH PERURENA PBTSEWWT PCI PETROL PINSO PINSCE PQL PEREZ PBS

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 03HARARE183, PARLIAMENT BUDGETARY PROCESS

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #03HARARE183.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
03HARARE183 2003-01-27 14:53 2011-08-24 16:30 UNCLASSIFIED Embassy Harare
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 HARARE 000183 
 
SIPDIS 
 
USAID/W FOR MCOPSON,AFR/SA; 
KSCHULTZ,DCHA/DG; MSCHIMPP 
DCHA/DG; MROSSER,AFR/SD 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAID PREL US ZI
SUBJECT:  PARLIAMENT BUDGETARY PROCESS 
 
REF:  HARARE 2821 
 
-------- 
Summary: 
-------- 
 
1. This year represents the second time in Parliament's 
20 year history that the budget bill has been 
disaggregated and subjected to a serious review by 
Parliament's newly (2000) created portfolio committees- 
consisting of Members of the ruling and opposition 
political parties.  This new, more transparent and 
inclusive approach to law making has seen the addition 
of outside experts, civil society organizations and 
interest groups participating in a critique of 
government's public policy objectives.  The unique 
innovation this year was the early engagement of 
portfolio committees with the ministries they shadow to 
discuss the 2003 budget requests.  Inclusive public 
hearings that discussed those requests were held in 
April, well in advance of the official submission of the 
2003 budget bill in late November.  In a number of 
instances, agreements made between committees and their 
ministries were reflected in the final budget bill. 
Particularly effective were the Health and Child Welfare 
Committee, and the Agriculture and Lands Committee, 
which demonstrated significant influence over the 
outcome. 
 
2. Despite this encouraging process, the disappointment 
of the year centered on the official review of the 
budget bill in November.  The budget bill was delivered 
very late in the year which limited the amount of time 
for the committees to do a final review.  Its 
assumptions were widely criticized as unrealistic and it 
did not address any of the underlying economic problems 
plaguing Zimbabwe.  The notice given to civil society 
and interest groups was insufficient to ensure their 
full participation. And the House, through the 
duplicitous action of the Minister of Justice, managed 
to pass the budget with virtually no debate and no 
amendments, marginalizing the portfolio committees' 
November recommendations for change and improvement. 
The result is that the Parliament did not follow through 
on an otherwise promising process of early engagement 
with the executive and civil society to ensure that the 
additional changes called for in the review of the 
Budget Bill were enacted into law.  Although the 
Executive Branch will ignore or marginalize Parliament 
when necessary, strengthening an institution that will 
play a crucial role in a future democratic Zimbabwe and 
which currently provides a rare opportunity for regular 
interaction between ZANU-PF and MDC politicians is an 
objective worth supporting.  End summary. 
 
------- 
Prelude 
------- 
 
3. Based upon lessons learned last year with the budget 
bill, parliament's portfolio committees began their work 
in preparation for the 2003 budget request in April, 
seven months prior to its submission to Parliament. 
These reviews with senior ministry representatives and a 
broad range of stakeholders focused on government 
spending compared against previously agreed upon 
objectives, policies and program targets.  The 
committees were aided by locally hired consultants drawn 
from the private sector and university community (with 
expertise in each sector).  The hearings received some 
media attention and were well attended.  Civil society 
organizations offered their views, shared their 
expertise, and provided the useful scrutiny.  Five 
committees in particular led the way in a proactive 
approach to law making and establishing a firm basis for 
effective executive oversight and improved 
accountability:  the Agriculture and Lands Committee; 
the Health and Child Welfare Committee; the Local 
Government Committee; the Education Committee; and the 
Mines, Energy and Tourism Committees (two chaired by 
ZANU-PF and three chaired by MDC). 
 
4. The 2003 budget bill was presented by the Minister of 
Finance against a backdrop of economic turmoil, driven 
largely by political instability and crisis economic 
mismanagement.  The budget presented a cogent 
description of the problems facing the economy as well 
as a reasonable set of explanations for many of the 
causes.  What it failed to do, however, was offer any 
practical or effective solutions.  The budget speech 
proposed some controversial and unpopular measures 
reported reftel but offered very little in the way of 
economic stimulus to increase investment and 
productivity, encourage exports, create jobs or to 
effectively curb a rising rate of inflation. 
 
5. Parliamentary Committees went to work on this budget 
bill, breaking it apart by sector or "Vote" while the 
Budget, Finance and Economic Development Committee 
looked carefully at the macro economics and public 
finance aspects of government's proposed spending plans. 
A team of four practicing economists, hired by USAID's 
Parliamentary Strengthening Program, assisted the 
committee in its review of the budget and held a 
briefing for all Members of Parliament (MPs) to raise 
pertinent issues before the portfolio committees got 
down to work.  Among other things, the Budget and 
Finance Committee raised concerns about inter-sectoral 
allocations and how they track with pronounced 
government policy, about the preference for consumption 
as opposed to investment expenditures, and about how 
these expenditure proposals fair in light of inflation 
or in real terms compared to previous years.  Portfolio 
committees looked at overall spending proposals compared 
to ministry budget requests, examined what the proposed 
reductions would mean in practical terms and queried 
intra-vote allocations against stated objectives, 
priorities and likely outcomes.  All this was done in 
full public view, with stakeholder representatives, 
government officials, consultants, advisors and 
journalists present and reports were tabled in the House 
on the findings and recommendations for change and 
improvement. 
 
------ 
Finale 
------ 
6. The results of all this laborious process, based upon 
a re-engineered legislative process as recommended by 
the Parliamentary Reform Committee in 1998, were 
disappointing.  The reports provided to Parliament by 
the committees were delivered, but debate was limited on 
the House floor by the Leader of the House, Patrick 
Chinamasa.  Moreover, most Ministers failed to show up 
in the House during the tabling of committee reports, 
opting for the Minister of Finance to answer questions 
that the reports raised in general terms.  The Minister 
of Finance's frequent refrain was that there was no 
money to do the things that committees and government 
departments favored.  There was virtually no response to 
suggestions to rethink priorities and rearrange planned 
expenditures based upon the committees' discussions and 
reports.  This marginalizing of committee work in the 
House undermined the authority of both the ZANU-PF and 
MDC portfolio committee chairs. 
 
7. More disturbing was a maneuver by the Leader of the 
House in which resulted in no debate taking place on the 
individual votes.  An agreement was made between the 
Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition 
that they would each consult their party caucuses before 
debating the budget bill, had been made, but the Leader 
of the House defaulted on his word.  He literally 
rearranged the order of items for review to deal with 
the budget bill when Members from both the opposition 
and ruling party were out of the chamber for the tea 
break.  With only 18 out of 150 members present, he fast 
tracked the 2003 budget and passed it without any real 
debate on the House floor. 
 
 
---------- 
Assessment 
---------- 
 
8. The 2000 Parliamentary Reforms from the 4th 
Parliament set out an ambitious set of reform objectives 
intended to strengthen Parliament as an institution. 
The introduction of a multi-party legislature and the 
reaction by the ruling party to this challenge has made 
the reforms more difficult, and at the same time all the 
more necessary.  The changes in the legislative process, 
as illustrated by the 2003 budget bill, show that some 
important tenets of democratic governance have been 
incorporated and are in the process f being 
institutionalized.  The establishment of portfolio 
committees to shadow the ministries, the use of outside 
expertise in reviewing bills, and the inclusion of civil 
society, interest groups and journalists are all new 
ways of doing business.  As a result, the MPs have 
gained expertise and understanding of government 
programs, identified with key constituencies, and 
improved their ability to offer constructive suggestions 
for change and improvement.  The fact that government 
spares no effort to marginalize these contributions when 
legislation reaches the House floor suggests how 
insecure and defensive the government is in the face of 
perceived threats, both real and imaginary. 
 
9. Despite the final disappointment of the budget 
process, we anticipate that Parliament's committees will 
continue to monitor government performance.  Both the 
ZANU-PF and MDC chairpersons take their roles seriously. 
As USAID's Parliamentary Strengthening Program continues 
to support the Portfolio Committee system, it helps to 
operationalize the reform program and bring a new way of 
doing business in Parliament.  USAID also supports and 
trains a core group of 16 civil society organizations 
that advocate to the portfolio committees in order to 
create more valid engagement and more constructive 
dialogue between the two sides.  This two-sided equation 
of the USAID democracy and governance program has 
ensured that Parliament offers a venue for bringing 
together civil society and ministry departments to 
debate issues and make recommendations that heretofore 
where outside their realm of influence.  The long-term 
challenge for these reforms will be to enact change on 
the floor of the House and to produce final legislation 
that meets the litmus test of democratic reform.  In the 
meantime, however, institutional change at the committee 
level continues to create a space that will hopefully 
permit the parliament at some future point to 
effectively address the enormous political obstacles 
present in Zimbabwe today.  WHITEHEAD