Germany ambassador to Zambia Anne Wagner-Mitchell says the democratic and human rights situation in Zambia has “moved a long way forward” since the election of President Hakainde Hichilema.
She was responding to historian Dr Sishuwa Sishuwa on X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday.
The South Africa-based academic had earlier criticised Swedish ambassador to Zambia Johan Hallenborg’s remarks published in News Diggers that the “UPND government has enhanced human rights and improved the civic space during their two years in office”.
Dr Sishuwa argued that what the Swedish envoy said is contradicted by “the reality”. It was at this point that the German ambassador joined the discussion and tried to do a bit of push backing on behalf of her criticised colleague.
Below is their full exchange on Twitter, now known as X.
DR SISHUWA: “The narrative: “The UPND government has enhanced human rights and improved the civic space during their two years in office – Swedish envoy Johan Hallenborg”
The reality: since the UPND came to power in August 2021, not a single public rally called by opposition parties has been allowed by the #Zambia Police.”
GERMANY AMBASSADOR WAGNER-MITCHELL: “Freedom of assembly is a crucial civil liberty that needs to be protected & enabled. Human rights in #Zambia need constant vigilance. However, having been here since 2020 and interacted with many civil society actors, I share the view that things have moved a long way forward.”
DR SISHUWA: “Thank you, Ambassador Wagner-Mitchell, for your opinion, which I will now proceed to engage.
To start with, when you say “Things have moved a long way forward”, what is your reference point? They have got better in comparison to what? What is the measurement or starting point, and who set it? If the reference point is the record of Edgar Lungu, whom many agree was a failure, why should that failure be the standard against whom we measure progress? Shouldn’t the standard be the normal standard?
Shouldn’t we evaluate the record of President Hakainde Hichilema based on the campaign promises he made when he was in opposition, one of which was to respect civil and political rights? Shouldn’t we evaluate Hichilema based on the mandate he received from voters? Surely that mandate was not for regressing democracy or maintaining the status quo, was it? If the reference point is not limited to Lungu’s stay in power, then don’t you think we, the locals, are better placed to tell you whether things have improved or not?
Second, may I ask for specific examples of how human rights protection has been improved in Zambia? I am sure you have not forgotten the authorities’ disgraceful treatment of Sean Tembo, Fred M’membe, Emmanuel Mwamba, and several other opposition figures. The picture of Mwamba, disheveled and bloody after his incarceration, was particularly upsetting. This is not evidence of enhanced human rights.
The point, Ambassador, is that arguments like the one you are making must be supported by evidence. I say this because I have many examples that suggest lack of progress. For instance, things have regressed in relation to the right to public assembly which is connected to the right to free speech – since people meet to talk – and the freedom of association, as those who meet are usually members associated with a specific organisation.
In fact, there are many rights violations that have occurred in Zambia since the election of Hichilema in 2021. I will not itemise them here since you, unlike the recently arrived Swedish envoy, have been in Zambia for much longer. Not once have you or your colleagues from other Western countries – who have historically condemned attacks on democracy and human rights in Zambia – publicly expressed outrage or even mild criticism of these violations. Why? What are you waiting for? Is there a particular threshold of undemocratic behaviour and human rights violations that you and your Western colleagues are waiting for before you speak out?
If there is none, then what explains your silence on the attacks on democracy and human rights by Hichilema’s administration? If there is a standard threshold of undemocratic behaviour and human rights violations that you are waiting for before publicly expressing outrage, what is that standard? And who established it? How does one explain your and your Western colleagues’ willingness to publicly praise the Hichilema administration for ‘enhancing civic space’, on the one hand, and your steadfast refusal to publicly condemn its undemocratic practices, on the other? One may claim that you and your colleagues are expressing outrage to the government privately, but we can only hold you to account for what you do or say in public. We are not privy to your private interactions and the undertakings of those in power.
Of course, no one wants you to speak out every time the government does wrong, but it is equally unhelpful for you to remain silent on all violations. Power hates exposure of its wrongs and if you only deliver criticism privately, there would be little incentive for Hichilema to change for the better. Your decision to remain silent until a particular threshold is reached before speaking out in defence of democracy suggests that it is okay to violate the rights of assembly, association, and free speech as long as one does not reach the level of repression we witnessed under the Lungu years, however arbitrary that threshold may be decided.
No, Ambassador, there should be no acceptable threshold for violations of human rights and attacks on democracy. Repression is repression, and must be condemned, not massaged with messages such as ‘Things have moved a long way forward’. We Zambians want a better Zambia, a truly functioning democracy, one which is built on the same standard of respect for democratic values and fundamental human rights as the one that exists in your country and indeed other established democracies.
I repeat. Please do not have different standards for us, as Africans, and for yourselves as Europeans or Americans. Such manner of proceeding might feed the racialised thinking that sees an African leader like Hichilema who resorts to low level repression as endurable because, in the viewpoint of that racialised thinking, ‘the situation can be worse; after all, these people are Africans, so a little bit of repression is ok.” If I ever were to encounter such thinking, I would say in response: ‘please do not have a low standard for us. We do not want a low standard imposed on us because we are Africans. Some of us (ordinary Zambians) want a higher standard for ourselves, for our institutions, for our elected public leaders, and indeed for our democracy.’
The reality, Ambassador, is that your – and your Western colleagues’ – continued silence against the violations of civil and political rights in Zambia today harms democracy and human rights by emboldening Hichilema’s nascent authoritarian behaviour, since he is secure in the knowledge that no one among those he respects will call him out. As you know, our President, for whatever reason, appears to pay greater attention to what you and your Western colleagues say to or about him – and I am not saying this with pride. As for the native Zambian, like me, who voted for and put him in office, he either ignores what we say or contemptuously dismisses our views or feedback on his leadership performance as nothing more than ‘noise’.
You will therefore understand why I am embarrassingly appealing to you to help us by, occasionally, publicly calling out the attacks on human rights and democracy by the Hichilema administration. Trust me, mine is not a good position to be in, where I, a citizen, must appeal to you, an outsider, to help me make my president a better public leader who strengthens our democracy. If you cannot speak out in defence of democracy and human rights, then please do not make it worse by attempting to create an alternative reality, as the Swedish envoy did. Doing so undermines local struggles and efforts towards a truly democratic Zambia.
I am focusing on you and your Western colleagues deliberately because African diplomats hardly criticise the democratic behaviour or record of their host governments. This is not because they don’t care. African envoys do not challenge violations of human rights largely because they have a misplaced sense of solidarity. Privately, democracies like Botswana, Mauritius, South Africa, and Ghana must be concerned about the shrinking civil liberties space in Zambia, but they will not issue public condemnation because this would undermine African unity. So when Western nations speak out in defence of democracy and human rights, they help fill the void created by this misplaced sense of solidarity. Unusually, you and your Western colleagues have now joined African envoys in silence.
By refusing to condemn the attacks on democracy and human rights that are occurring under Hichilema, Western countries are, in effect, working against him in that their silence helps sustain the narrative that he is their ‘puppet’, and they consequently can’t condemn him publicly. The silence also feeds the perception that democracy promotion, for Western countries, is nothing but the entry point for securing their interests. They are prepared to look away from the wrongs of an African leader who is seen as faithful to their interests. It’s impossible to completely dismiss such perceptions when one considers the reality today.
Take, for instance, the fact that Hichilema is holding public rallies while preventing the opposition from doing the same. Today, the opposition Socialist party were supposed to hold a public rally on the Copperbelt Province to discuss, among other things, the cost-of-living crisis. The police, who had earlier said they could not manage this event due to lack of adequate manpower, sent over a hundred police officers to seal off the venue of the rally. This same number of officers would have been enough to police the opposition party’s rally. This is not the first time this has happened. Last month, a public rally called by the opposition Patriotic Front was stopped in similar circumstances in Lusaka.
In the meantime, Hichilema, who has effectively launched his re-election campaign with a passionate appeal to Zambians to give him a second term, is busy conducting public rallies without any restrictions. Where is the fairness in this? What, for instance, stops you, or the UK High Commissioner, or the American Ambassador, or the recently arrived Swedish envoy, from publicly saying this continued curtailing of the activities of opposition parties is as wrong now as it was under president Edgar Lungu? These violations are what your predecessor and other Western diplomats commendably condemned when done by the PF. Why are they accepted today? If there is a homogeneous standard for democracy, what explains this selective application of democratic values in the same country? Why won’t you and your Western colleagues say a word publicly against these violations? Do you see why your continued silence on rights violations risks feeding the perception that Hichilema is your man?”
GERMANY AMBASSADOR WAGNER-MITCHELL: “Thank you @ssishuwa for engaging. Happy to continue the conversation in person. I’ll be in touch.”
By press time, Dr Sishuwa had not responded.
And world-renowned Zimbabwean award-winning international filmmaker and 2 Time CNN African Journalist of The Year Hopewell Chinono has condemned the banning of opposition rallies in Zambia.
HOPEWELL CHIN’ONO wrote: “It is extremely disappointing that the opposition in Zambia is not being allowed to have rallies for the same reasons that are used to deny the opposition in Zimbabwe the tight to hold rallies by ZANUPF.
You see, ZANUPF is expected to behave the way it does, nobody expects any better from it. But why should a Zambian president who ran on a democracy ticket do the same things being done by a repressive political party like ZANUPF.
Where will the Zambian president get the moral standing to criticise colleagues who are behaving badly when he denies his own opposition the right to congregate.
You can’t practice democracy abroad in speeches whilst you are denying your opposition basic democratic rights like the right to meet through a rally. President Hichilema should allow his rivals the right to meet and provide security through the police, denying your opponents the right to congregate is autocratic and it is a tool used by dictatorships.”
Source: The Mast newspaper
