THERE are interesting reports on top African policy makers preparing to gather in Arusha this week to examine ways of “elevating the role of social security funds in addressing Africa’s infrastructure and service delivery gaps.” This was the position expressed by the portfolio minister at the weekend, concerning the 14th annual conference of Africa social protection policy makers starting Wednesday. Ministers will have conclave of their own on the first day, and an open conference proceed for another two days, presumably with a better chance of reaching am expert consensus.

The theme is something of a surprise as it has little to do with social security or service delivery in that accord specifically, but social security funds as catalysts for infrastructure development and inclusive socio‑economic growth in Africa.

 It is a bit curious how funds belonging to pensioners ought to be used for enabling ‘inclusion’ of others, when there are scores of other ways of enabling ends meet in government expenditure in those other regards. The conference will first have to show how this sort of orientation will have no perceptible impact in pensioners being paid properly.

It is hard to say whether this suggestion elevates pension funds to a higher role or indeed downgrades their role, ability to take care of pensioners, when the funds are tasked not with perhaps adding to social security funds strictly speaking, but roads and other outlays. It is thus going to be interesting to see how the major continental gathering bringing together high-ranking officials and sector experts from 15 African countries hosted by the Africa Social Security Association (ASSA) will sort out this problem, or indeed properly state the case for such role. Why not say keep off hands on pensioners’ funds, save for things like Treasury bills or bonds, not roads, energy?

Only now does it come to light that there is a wide ranging feeling that funding gaps relating to aid cuts are spelling a crisis of policy outlook, where the reason is that officials are merely looking for funds, not policy adaptation to the new situation. There is a talk engagement between the European Union and top government officials also slated for this week, early in the week for that matter, where it is unlikely that this sort of plan would pass as inclusive or even appropriate. Gaps in infrastructure or social services are easily addressed with a public-private partnership approach, not having to skim off pension funds for such outlays as thus suggested.

This policy initiative shows how ingrained the whole problematic of public funds for outlays of all sorts is deep sitting in the outlook of policy makers not just in Tanzania but all over Africa. It dawned on some policy makers that this is the best way to make up for lost aid funds, that is by draining pension funds as a ready-made source of large amounts of idle money.  This impression is based on a traditional contempt for the working class and arguably, a sort of slavery mentality where one gets out of public service engagement, and if he gets dues for survival or not it matters little.

There is strictly no reason to limit the conference of administrators and practitioners from across Africa’s social protection sector to discuss only how pension funds can aid other project needs not related to their own needs like shelter or healthcare. 

The whole issue of financing major infrastructure or other strategic investments ought to be directed at the banks, but policy makers prefer to borrow money from sources incapable of enforcing any repayment engagement, for instance with an attachment order issued by a court of law. Were the suggested policy guidelines to be adopted and become policy, it would be a profoundly negative day for future pensioners.