Last week, ministers of finance of East African Community partner states presented the national budgets to their respective parliaments. It is an annual ritual with its peculiar practices and symbols such as the budget speech briefcase, which they make sure we must all see.

The practice is inherited from British tradition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has always carried his budget proposals to parliament in a briefcase. Because of thousands of journeys to Westminster and handling by hundreds of chancellors over the centuries, it is battered and aged.

Not so the ones carried by east African finance ministers. They all appear new, even those of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania that are supposed to have been in use for 60 years and should be showing signs of wear. Unless, of course, there is a new one every year, provided for in the budget and acquired at taxpayers’ expense.

Other peculiar practices include a unique way of showing support or opposition to the budget proposals. In countries with adversarial politics, the budget reading ritual may include booing and jeering, noisy walkout, or boycott of the sitting by opposition parties. Government benches show their support by vigorous foot thumping or banging on tables.

In countries which practise consensual politics, as in Rwanda, it is more business-like, even a little boring, Legislators follow the reading keenly but impassively and wait for the debate that will follow to raise any contrary opinions.

After all this, the respective legislatures debate the budget proposals for some time and usually pass it without much change.

Ordinary members of the public await the yearly budget reading ritual with expectation. Often it is apprehension, rarely optimism. They are eager to know what is in it for them, but fear it is unlikely to be attractive.

The elite – economists, academics and other intellectuals, journalists, politicians and civil society activists - wait for it with different intentions. Some, to study it for indications of the country’s direction, others to poke holes in it, tear it apart and trash it, or to use it to bash the government.

The level of public interest in budget matters is usually a useful indicator of the health of the economy, the state of politics, or even a particular historical period. It reflects the confidence or anxiety of the people.

In the past, for instance, before the liberalisation of east African economies, when the state still set prices for nearly everything, the attention to the budget was on whether there would be a price increase or reduction (rarely the latter) especially of foodstuffs and such as items as cigarettes and beer.

And so on Thursday afternoon in mid-June, most people would be glued to their TV or radio sets listening to the budget speech for the inevitable announcement. The next day’s newspapers would be sold out before the afternoon. Phrases from the minister’s speech such as, ‘these measures take effect from midnight tonight’ were a signal for hoarding or (in rare instances) offloading, or a trigger for some more indulgence while the price was still good.

Today, some of these have changed, but most remain the same. The ritual is the same as they usually are. The budget remains a statement of how and from where the government proposes to raise revenue and how, how much, and on what to spend it.

Public interest also remains the same, but with a slight difference. Among ordinary people, it is more muted or resigned. Not much will change, many seem to think. The speech is routine, unchanging and boring. In any case, many do not understand the complex figures and terminology. That is for the elite and politicians.

In another sense, however, public attention remains as keen as ever. In the past, it was on prices of certain goods (really the effect of taxes). Today, the interest is on taxation. For the majority of citizens, the national budget is little more than a statement on how to tax them and increase the heavy burden they bear already. They complain that the taxes are unbearably high and collection and enforcement measures unfriendly.

This, together with the war in Ukraine, is seen as the main cause of rising prices and increased hardship.

Indeed, in Rwanda recently, these concerns attracted the attention of President Paul Kagame who ordered a review and search for more effective but less stressful collection methods.

In Kenya, a separate taxation bill is raising the political temperature to dangerous levels and fuelling what promises to be a bitter partisan standoff.

To be fair to governments, they must raise revenue and taxation is one sure way of doing so. And so they are compelled to cast the net wider and deeper to bring in more taxpayers. No one comes willingly; they come kicking and screaming. Those who can even the net will. It is the same the world over.

However, there is something positive about this concern with taxes.

That the budget speech has become routine and boring means that it is more predictable and therefore credible. Governments will not spring any surprises and can therefore be trusted.

It means that people are paying attention to their countries’ economies and their stake in them. They will want value for their taxes. This awareness will make citizens demand more accountability from their governments. They in turn will become responsive to the needs and concerns of their citizens.

They also probably remember that taxation has been the cause of revolutions in the past.