By Sishuwa Sishuwa and Nic Cheeseman
Kenneth Kaunda, Zambia’s “founding father” and first president, has died in a military hospital in Lusaka where he was being treated for pneumonia. Aged 97, he was the last of the generation of leaders who secured independence for their countries from colonial rule and went on to govern through their own distinctive political and economic philosophies. Like the continent’s other “philosopher kings” — Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta, Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere, Senegal’s Leopold Senghor — Kaunda’s vision for Zambia’s post-colonial future left a profound imprint on society that lasted well beyond his time in power.
He will be remembered variously as a freedom fighter who supported liberation struggles across Southern Africa, a nation-builder who avoided divide-and-rule politics, a bad economist who presided over decades of decline, a repressive leader who enforced an unpopular one-party state and an elder statesman who peacefully accepted defeat having lost the 1991 general elections. He was all of these things, embodying both strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures. Yet above all, he is likely to be remembered, against the backdrop of his often corrupt and repressive successors, as a man who was ultimately willing to put the national interest ahead of his own.
The rise to power
Kaunda, popularly known as KK, was born in Chinsali to parents who were teachers; and, significantly, to a father who came from what is now Malawi. This gave Kaunda a distinctive position in Zambian political life. On the one hand he hailed from an area dominated by the Bemba and spoke the Bemba language, and so could effectively mobilise one of the country’s largest ethnic groups. On the other hand, his mixed heritage encouraged him to stay above ethnic politicking and to seek to balance the representation of different groups in his cabinet.
Having initially followed in his parents’ footsteps as a teacher, Kaunda resigned in 1951 to become the organising secretary of the Northern Rhodesian ANC in the Northern Province. In time, he became disillusioned with the moderate stance of ANC leader Harry Nkumbula and quit in 1958 to set up the rival Zambian (ZANC). This new political vehicle, which argued for rapid decolonisation, was quickly shut down by the colonial government, and Kaunda was imprisoned for nine months.
Upon his release, and with a reputation bolstered by the time that he had spent in jail, Kaunda took up the leadership of the United National Independence Party, which had been formed while he was in detention. By pushing a more radical message and developing a strong structure in urban areas along the line of rail, UNIP quickly eclipsed the ANC and so it was Kaunda who emerged as the country’s first Prime Minister and then President following independence in 1964.
In power, Kaunda sought to strike a delicate balance by not offending the country’s powerful trade unions — which frequently demanded improvements in pay and conditions — international donors, who wanted to see a reduction in government spending, its religious leaders who exerted a strong influence over Zambian hearts and minds, and the country’s different ethnic groups, each of which feared being outmanoeuvred by the others. The multiple compromises this resulted in are well demonstrated by his professed ideology, Zambian humanism, which was leftwing without being explicitly socialist, focused on the struggle for human progress without being “godless”, and was community minded while rejecting the principle of tribalism.
This was not simply a political manoeuvre — Kaunda really did believe in these things, and was in many ways more of a moderate than his counterparts elsewhere on the continent.
Yet, in consistently trying to balance these competing pressures, Kaunda risked pleasing no one. He failed to make the country less dependent on copper, but this didn’t stop damaging trade union strikes. Meanwhile, leaders from the Bemba rejected his efforts at ethnic balancing, complaining that they had not been sufficiently rewarded for the prominent role that they played in securing independence.
As economic conditions worsened, the greatest threat to UNIP was not defeat by the ANC, but rather that a group of Kaunda’s supposed allies would break away to challenge his rule. When his long-time friend and former vice-president, Simon Kapwepwe, left to form the United Progressive Party (UPP), Kaunda realised that a UPP/ANC alliance might defeat UNIP, and so began proceedings to introduce a one-party state in 1972.
Kaunda officially justified the one-party state on the basis that it was necessary because the country was at war. This was self-serving, because the real motivation was domestic not international, but it contained an element of truth. Kaunda had offered support to liberation movements in Southern Africa, offering fierce criticism to foreign leaders who supported white minority rule such as Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, and so feared attacks from apartheid South Africa.
Zambia also suffered in other ways. When sanctions were placed on Ian Smith’s Rhodesia, it cut off landlocked Zambia from important trading routes, making a challenging economic situation even more difficult. Initially Kaunda and UNIP’s legitimacy as nationalist heroes allowed them to ride this out but, as the economy continued to suffer, popular support ebbed away and the government was increasingly forced to use repression instead of cooptation and persuasion. Some dissidents were beaten and locked up,others fled the country.
By the late 1980s, Kaunda had run out of ideas, UNIP’s official structures were little more than a fiction, and the one-party state was on borrowed time.
A leader reborn
This is the point at which most incumbent leaders agreed to reintroduce multiparty politics only to use violence, censorship, and intimidation to manipulate the polls and stay in power. But Kaunda took a different path, and in so doing revived his reputation. UNIP tried to manipulate the elections but without the repression seen in places such as Kenya and Togo. The result was a landslide defeat, after which Kaunda gracefully accepted defeat and congratulated his successor.
That act allows Zambians to remember KK as a leader who twice put the national interest before his own — in the 1960s and in the 1990s. The relatively poor performance of the leaders who succeeded him only served to boost his political rehabilitation. His immediate replacement, Frederick Chiluba, stole hundreds of millions of dollars and tried to use the fact that Kaunda had Malawian ancestry to claim he was not really Zambian and bar him from contesting the 1996 general election. Viewed against the backdrop of current President Edgar Lungu, who stands accused of dividing the country while mishandling the economy and rigging elections, Kaunda’s record appears to be considerably more impressive.
The memory of Kaunda as a nation-builder will also be sustained by the contrast between his manner and the brash style of the contemporary political class. Despite being a national liberation hero, Kaunda never lost his human touch. We interviewed him and saw at first hand his modest lifestyle and lack of pretension. It was a reminder of a less cynical and more idealistic time when leaders were not assumed to be corrupt, arrogant and flashy. As some of those who have taken to social media to share their thoughts on his death have pointed out, it was characteristic of Kaunda that at a time when so many of Africa’s elite fly to the United States or India for medical treatment, he was treated and died in a Zambian hospital.
When Zambians observe 21 days of national mourning, they will not just be grieving for KK, but also for a lost era of hope, national pride and human dignity.
I’m bored with these articles now.
A quick google and you can learn about KK then and now.
I hold a PhD.
I remember the Q’s for food and basics, the OP secret police and their check points, the one party state – you can vote but only for KK and the social experiment that went wrong , empty shelves in shops and the state owned factories that encouraged laziness and poor proactivity . even letting the Rhodesians just come into Zambia and bomb it. over the last tens years keeping quite while PF looted the country instead of being vocal of his beloved Zambia. other than free education what did he really do, build railways and pipe lines? No Chinese did that . build roads no the Yugoslavs’ did that. Build and fund the University of Zambia. No the Canadians did that, even the first Chancellor was Canadian. the only thing he did was when he lost the election he stepped down and i respect him for…
I respect him for that. Only other African leader that did that was Mandela.
Both of Kaunda’s parents were Malawians by birth and not just his father. Kaunda would probably hv been a better leader had been more educated. Some of the decisions he made were more influenced by those around him whom he trusted than his own understanding. For example, whn he publicly announced in the late 1980s that his party was now to be driven by scientific socialism, Kaunda had no idea that this in fact meant the Godless communism. Its religious leaders from the Catholic Church who stood up against that because they understood it whereas he didn’t. The overall picture,however, is that of a man who did well for Zambia.
If FTJ stole millions, why was he acquitted by the Courts?? An article lacking substance written by neo-colonialist advocates. Nic Cheeseman and Sishupu have disparaged this country in other articles and have deep dislike for the PF and Edgar Lungu. Biased article which distorts our history and these 2 shouldn’t be writing articles about this son of Africa.
Nic Cheesman and Sishupu (a Rhodes scholar) should be writing articles about David Livingston, Cecil Rhodes, Roy Welenski etc. Don’t stain our African history with your colonial ideologies.
Dr Sishuwa Sishuwa is an informed and articulate commentator on public issues. He won’t be cowed into silence by the threat of jail or dismissal from his position as lecturer in modern history at the University of Zambia. We are lucky to hv such a brave young scholar who is not afraid of criticising lawyers and judges alike. His outspokeness is driven by outstanding knowledge of how humanity has moved from backwardness to today’s relative freedom. It’s wht modern history is all about. U don’t specialise in modern history and then fail to recognize autocracy in present times.
A f00I who is being paid by a tribal party to destabilise the peace in our country should be the last person to write anything about a great man who stood for one zambia one nation. This boy sishuwa is riddled with diseases that are affecting is brain
It’s true UNIP identified itself as Left-wing and still does, in practice though they are Centre-left.
KK has gone physically but his legacy lives on through all of us who went through his school of thought ” HUMANISM” the Five AREA OF HUMAN ENDEVOUR. MAN EAST – MAN WEST UNTI ALL THOSE WHO EXPERIENCED HIS LEADERSHIP AND WAY OF DOING THINGS PASS ON. I STILL REMEMBER AFTER RHODESIAN FORCES BOMBED SOME BRIDGES IN ZAMBIA TO ASSURE THE NATION, THE MAN SAID WE SHALL REBUILD, REBUILD ZAMBIA, AND SHALL SIZE THEM ON, TAKE THEM ON. PACHEPA SANA. SMITH IS KILLING INNOCENT YOUNG WOMEN WHO NOT COMBATANTS AFTER THE MKUSHI RAID.
Rubbish! I have tried to keep away from commenting on LT but this article totally distorts/twists the facts. So disappointing coming from the so called professor. If I was your student I would shred you to pieces and you would no doubt fail me in your course. What I’m reading is your campaign for HH disguised as an article about KK. Not that there’s anything wrong with who you support. It’s your democratic right. But don’t use KK and the Bemba’s for your political gain. You’re not helping but rather decampaigning HH with this article. You have no credibility to write about KK. Enough of this know it all when you actually know nothing. Give the old man KK some respect and let him rest in peace.
Sishuwa was a young boy during much of the KK presidency and has no personal memory of much of wht he has written above. It’s all from recorded sources. If those sources are biased, it’s not his fault. Secondly, HH has no control over wht academics choose to write because they are not on his staff.
Yes KK was a philosopher king alongside Kenyatta ,Nkuruma,Nyerere and he failed economically .But he was surely better than the current crop of leaders.
Mzambia wa Zamani @ 13, I agree.
…..By pushing a more radical message and developing a strong structure in urban areas along the line of rail, UNIP quickly eclipsed the ANC…..
This is why the Patriotic Front of Michael Sata overtook the strides made by slothful conservative UPND, because Hakainde Hichilema was (is) not fire brand. Aiming for presidency, one needs to be strategic, revolutionary
When you want to find a fault in a leader, you can easily see it. Some eyes have seen KK’s “corrupt and repressive successors”.
While others are solidifying the strength in our Dr. Kaunda, they didn’t acknowledge it when he was alive. Biased commentators only talk about one achievement: he graciously handed over power to MMD. KK became a hero 1991 when he lost. His 27 years reign was decayed ruin and trash.
Same thing happened to Mwanawasa and Sata. The Cabbage and the Snake are today’s unforgettable action heroes in death. We fail to harness their effort when alive.
Even Lungu today is a use.less stu.pid id.io.t awaiting eulogies tomorrow from scholarly historians.
Mzambia wa Zamani and Mulongoti Machayi are both right in different ways.But KK’s foreign debts never became a crisis like today’s Lungu debts.
KK both parents came from Malawi and settled in Chinsali. His Father being a Malawian Tonga and Mother Tumbuka. Malawian Tonga is very similar to Tumbuka and it is believed that they came from Tumbukas and share names including surnames. Buchizya, Panji, Wezi, Masuzyo are Tumbuka/Tonga names.
Comments are closed.