Mission hospitals funding biased

THE Chronicle of June 21, 2016 carried a news item showing massive disparities in the Government funding of mission hospitals in some of Zimbabwe's regions.

The story said a report tabled by the Portfolio Committee on Health and Child Care on a targeted approach programme in mission hospitals showed that some of the hospitals were given more than 18 times less funds than others, and that most of those adversely affected are in Matabeleland.

Figures published by this newspaper showed that Mtshabezi Mission Hospital in Matabeleland South province got $37,500.

Meanwhile, St Albert's Mission Hospital in Mashonaland Central province got a whopping $709, 200, Mnene Mission Hospital in Mberengwa in the Midlands was given $670,000, and Chikombedzi Hospital in Masvingo received $250,000.

The Minister of Health and Child Care, Dr David Parirenyatwa, said the various amounts were decided by the then Finance Minister, Mr Tendai Biti, during the Government of National Unity (GNU) period. Mr Biti was at that time a member of the MDC-T.

The only person capable of explaining why there was such a big difference in the various amounts is the then Finance Minister, Mr Biti.

However, he ceased to be in that position in 2013, that is, some three years ago.

A great deal has occurred between that year and now in terms of development in the country's provinces.

That development involved schools, roads, medical services, infrastructure, broadcasting facilities, dipping tanks, electrification and other areas of importance to the people.

Mr Biti is now a leader of another opposition party, hoping against reality that he will one day be the President of Zimbabwe.

That is, however, not anyone's but his concern, least of all that of the writer of this opinion article.

What should be of grave concern to every fair-minded Zimbabwean is how a person in a senior national position can be so blatantly biased   against some of the national communities as to deny them an equitable share of their national financial resources in favour of other regions.

In national building programmes, such a sentiment is a weakness and has very negative effects not only on those adversely affected but even on the favoured regions or communities.

The practice creates a very negative image of the government in the minds of the nation at large.

That is an unfortunate public relations disadvantage.

We need not go into detail about how some diseases can spread from the disadvantaged regions or communities to other areas of the country, including the favoured regions or communities.

A cabinet minister's responsibilities are national and not regional.

An external important quality of a good cabinet minister is unyielding integrity, which simply means the ability to resist temptations such as bribery, ethnicity or regionally discriminatory influences or tendencies, and other vices whose results are disruptive, destructive or corruptive.

Members of Parliament are bound by the same ethic in that they represent the interests of everybody in their respective constituencies, whether or   not those people are members of their party, whether or not they are voters, whether or not they are politically active or conscious, and whether or not they are young or adults.

That is why a constituency office should serve every constituent although it is  manned by political activists of the party whose representative is in office.

It should be as non-discriminatory in its service delivery as MPs are all-embracing in their constituency representative positions.

The cabinet serves the entire nation and not constituencies as is the case with MPs.

However, each minister may have a particular population segment such as farmers or pupils and students as his or her particular constituency in terms of the policy or service offered.

That service is offered without any regard to or consideration of ethnic characteristics or regional location.

It is unreservedly unacceptable for a ministry to favour one region or ethnic group at the expense of other regions or ethnic groups. That generates resentment.

We collectively fought for the freedom of this country. We did not provincialise or regionalise, let alone ethnicise the liberation struggle.

It was a national effort by every gallant Zimbabwean patriot.

The fruits of our independence must be equitably distributed and enjoyed by every Zimbabwean.

No justification can be given for giving Mtshabezi Mission Hospital less financial resources than St Albert's, or Kariangwe Hospital less than Mnene.

If the major deciding factor was the size of the population, Chikombedzi Hospital should most probably have been given the largest amount because Masvingo province is undoubtedly the most densely populated region in Zimbabwe.

However, without knowing what criteria were used by Mr Biti's ministry, we should be excused for assuming that an ethnic or regional bias was a causal factor.

It is because of such most unacceptable practice in the sharing of the national financial resources that some districts such as Bulilima in Matabeleland South province do not have a single centimetre of tarred road.

How can anyone justify that anomaly?

Saul Gwakuba Ndlovu is a retired, Bulawayo-based journalist. He can be contacted on cell 0734 328 136 or through email sgwakuba@gmail.com