Matsheka tears Serame's Budget Speech to pieces
Former finance Minister and Member of Parliament for Lobatse, Dr. Thapelo Matsheka says Transitional National Development Plan (TNDP) should be prominently different from an extension of National Development Plan (NDP11).
Matsheka who described himself as a development practitioner before a politician said like everyone else he is concerned about the state of the economy.
He said TNDP must be a plan that aims to deliver in the time period targeted. It is not a plan to make a plan. It’s a plan of its own. It is not an extension of NDP 11 to allow for developing a development plan for NDP 12.
Contributing to the 2023/24 Budget Speech, Matsheka said he has struggled to find the transition in the plan or the plan during the transition.
“I suspect we may have missed a great opportunity for transformation. The truncation between the delivered speech and its policy pronouncements and the transition plan represent a lost opportunity.
“This is more so given that the speech makes the point that all the projects that are in the transition plan will only get funded when they are near implementation thus most remain unfunded. That’s why I am saying that there is no plan during the transition to NDP 12. We are where we started”.
As an example, Matsheka said there are documents that are critical to separate specific issues to address in the short space of two years to transition to 2024; these are the Mid Term Review of NDP11, Economic Recovery and Transition Plan and The Reset Agenda.
He said the transition plan should have extracted specific and set objectives which are integral elements of a transition plan. In his view, the shift to a national planning commission is a welcome development. However, the restructuring of the planning system must not be bloated but lean and agile.
“I note the number of departments that have been brought under one roof. I am not sure that all the departments fully delivered their mandates and thus run the risk of bringing undesirable cultures to the new approach to planning.
“These departments were there during the Vision 2016 period even when implementation was still a challenge. I therefore remain worried about a new approach finding ground.'
It is his hope that the planning process will assume a more national posture in the determination of national priorities and iconic infrastructure development.
He said there is a need for a national form of infrastructure which is common throughout the country and thus must be given national priority and implementation focus.
He said transition plan is a specific plan. It is not a general plan. It is a targeted plan to move with force on prioritized areas of concern and needing greater focus and resources.
Matsheka suggested that the transition Plan must sit on top of a National Development Plan seeking its special funding to accelerate and consolidate the gaps that have been identified on account of shocks occasioned by Covid-19 and its effects on the health sector and the economy in general.
Talking about the electoral process, Matsheka said whilst the opportunity is provided to align election cycles to planning period it has its own shortcomings. Political business cycles are not good for investment planning by the private sector.
“The public private partnership that we want to foster cannot be done under an environment of uncertainty. The investments and retention policies of companies depend on a high level of certainty.
“The change of government with divergent policies is a source of concern for the private sector and the natural instinct is to hold back on investments to see who wins the elections. It is the people that always pay a price in that period”.
Further, the Plan if not specific and focused on key areas over the short period of transition becomes “business as usual” in that a significant number of projects and initiatives are ongoing projects which continue as normal planning circle as contained in National Development Plans.
He said Botswana did not achieve the growth rate required for 2016 and it seems we are challenged to achieve 2036 unless we create a totally different approach to planning.
The Transition Plan should have been the basis for transformation; to move from 2.7 percent average growth of NDP11 to the 6 percent required for high income status. “It sadly does not do so. It does not carry the
necessary economic details to lend itself to implementation outside of projects”. He said the level of unemployment stands at 25.4 percent; the level Poverty stubbornly at 20.8 percent; Skewed and uneven income distribution; Limited private sector penetration marking the continued dominant role of government which is not good for resilience of the people; The Infrastructure deficit in both quality and quantity.
The growth of the economy is still largely driven by mining and largely the diamond sector. You will see from the growth data that it is driven by the recovery of the diamond sector.
Therein lies our core challenge to grow the non-mining sector. “We have adopted an export-led strategy to grow the economy and diversification; an open economy. However, we keep closing and opening the economy depending on certain considerations.
“These macro indicators should set a base for micro policy interventions. It is those micro policies that should form the greater part of the Budget statement to this house. It seems to be much easier to make many policies without any reflection on the key micro interventions”, Dr. Matsheka noted, warning that we are perhaps in a policy trap that we don’t seem to be able to disentangle ourselves.
Matsheka said the first plan was delivered in 1968 and those ideas have carried us to date and continue to form the basis for our national planning system.
“I have to put it on record that in the period between 1980 and 1990 we had the record of the fastest growing economy in the world; a record we have not repeated to date.
“Further that we now have an abundance of skills to steward the country and no excuse will be acceptable and it will remain a failure of this generation that was bequeathed a wealthy state and a solid base to transit to a higher income status.
“It is our time; most of the founders are no longer with us. It is left to us but we seem to be less keen to frankly deal with our challenges. We are very sensitive to criticism and thus fail to grasp the appropriate response to the above stated challenges of our time”.