Lusaka: What does the Church have to say about current politics in Zambia? No, don't worry, in today's column I'm not going to wave any "red flags" or call for any "regime change"! Nor am I going to respond to the incredible statements recently made by a high government official that "Bishops should concentrate on the theological work they were sent here to do." Has such an official never heard of "pastoral work" that is vitally concerned with people's lives?

Nor will I comment on the outrageous remarks continually voiced in a government newspaper, for instance charging that Catholics in Zambia are fomenting the kind of genocide that Catholics in Rwanda promoted. Has the author of such remarks ever bothered to study the actual accounts done by the Rwandan government itself?

Nor will I wonder out loud why a prominent MMD official on the Copperbelt has not been arrested - or at least dismissed from the party - for issuing explicit physical threats to "sort out" a Catholic Bishop for expressing views this official doesn't like. Have the police been numbed against taking action against those who publicly threaten such violence?

CST PILLAR

Rather, let me suggest some points to consider when the just-opened session of the Parliament take up the 2011 National Budget to be submitted in a few days. Advance reports indicate that the Budget will exceed 17 trillion kwacha raised from Zambians by taxes and from donors by contributions. (That is, if all the donors have not followed recent advice to ‘pack your bags and go home"!)

The points I put forward to consider are drawn from what we refer to as the "Church's social teaching" (CST) - that body of wisdom drawn from Scripture, theological reflection, statements on key issues and the example of good people living out their faith. What I like to call the "four pillars of CST" are: dignity of the human person (with subsequent rights and duties), community of all (marked by solidarity), option for the poor (special concern in plan and priority), and integrity of creation (respect for environmental issues).

Those who are familiar with the work of the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) know that this CST motivates and guides our public policy research and advocacy. Let me briefly propose here how the "four pillars" have relevance to the debates and decisions that will occupy Parliament when it considers the National Budget.

HUMAN DIGNITY

Take the first pillar, for example. The dignity of the human person is of course the primary foundation of society, relying on the clear expression of Genesis 1:27 that every person is made in the image and likeness of God. That means that everyone has rights - not because government grants these rights but rather government is obliged to protect and promote the rights God has already granted in creating the human person.

So when the Budget proposes expenditures for health and education, the basic right to life should influence the priority of specific allocations. A member of parliament does not have a right to a new vehicle but a child does have a right to an education and a mother does have a right to health care. The CST makes very clear that choices in deciding priorities among scarce resources in the 2011 Budget should be influenced and determined by consideration of rights.

Whether Zambians have access to clean water is not a laughing matter (by the way, was that ruling party MP ever publicly reprimanded for highly offensive laughing when the NCC was debating the Bill of Rights?).

Equal treatment of women is not "culturally negotiable"- as if, for example, the physical abuse of battering could somehow be made acceptable. So when budgetary allocations relating to water supply or gender respect is debated, the CST pillar of human dignity certainly has a place in debate and decision.

HUMAN COMMUNITY

A second concern would be that the National Budget strengthens the community of "One Zambia, One Nation." I think that this should be more than a rhetorical reminiscence of days gone by. Community that builds solidarity, or solidarity that builds community, needs to be shown by the geographical and tribal equity that would mark budget allocations. And don't let partisan considerations such as voting patterns influence development priorities across the country!

Of course another key challenge that Parliament must face if community is to be a valued reality is how to take steps to lessen the shamefully high Gini Co-efficient that marks income distribution in Zambia. This figure manifests the growing gap of inequality between the rich and the poor in this country of very rich resources and very poor people. For example, will budget priorities favour employment generation investments over high-tech ventures?

OPTION FOR POOR

How could the Budget pay attention to the option for the poor? Aside from increasing the expansion of social services that particularly benefit the poor, one way that the Budget could demonstrate special concern for the more that 65 per cent of Zambians who live below the poverty line would be to make more fair the national tax policies.

With the most recent JCTR Basic Needs Basket showing that a family of six in Lusaka needs at least K2.7 million, certainly the PAYE tax bands should be significantly adjusted upwards, possibly to start at least over one to 1.5 million kwacha or more.

But another more substantial step to show an option for the poor would be to rationalise the tax structures for the mines in this country. Would I be mistaken if I asserted that there are very few Zambians - aside from high government officials and owners of the mines - who feel strongly that the current tax structure is equitable and efficient in returning to Zambians what they are due from foreign investors reaping immense profits from the Mother earth of Zambia.

To be frank, we have never yet heard a good explanation of why mineral royalties and their collection are not returning more kwacha to the National Budget, kwacha that could be utilised to improve the conditions of the poor in this country.

INTEGRITY OF CREATION

Finally, the CST pillar of integrity of creation should influence budgetary decisions that are both positive and negative. For example, monies designated to promote greater re-forestation would be positive as a step to markedly improve our Zambian environment. And tighter restrictions on pollution by the mining industry and the new export zones would be a negative way of ecological protection. What will the Budget say about these matters?

It should be obvious that the CST that I urge should guide the up-coming debate and decision of the National Budget is not a partisan affair, nor an attack on government, nor a demand for regime change. It is simply a call for the basic values that promote the common good of all Zambians to take precedence over personal or party interests.

Shouldn't we be able to expect that from our parliamentarians? If not, why not?

* Commentary by Peter Henriot.