By Michael Chishala

More than a year ago, I wrote an article in which I expressed strong concerns that the main opposition United Party for National Development (UPND) was making itself irrelevant by being fixated on their dead election petition and their “right to be heard” court case. Many others since then have began ringing the alarm bells and urging the UPND to make themselves an effective opposition party.

I can now confidently say that the UPND is the most ineffective main opposition political party I have ever seen in Zambia. Words like “toothless”, “hapless”, and “impotent” are among the words I can use to describe the UPND in its current state. In the last 3 years, they had two clear chances to win an election outright, or at the very least, put themselves in pole position to win the next General Election in 2021.

I expected UPND to be on fire and be constantly attacking the ruling party the Patriotic Front (PF) who have made many unforced errors and sadly seem to have forgotten the men and women that voted for them. Like the PF to the then ruling Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD), I expected UPND to be all over the PF and induce better governance for Zambia as they point out the mistakes of PF. There is nothing worse for a country than an opposition that fails to keep the ruling party on its toes. It leads to a comfort zone from which only decay and decline can proceed.

The recent electoral loss by the UPND of the Chilanga Parliamentary seat and several Ward by-elections before that have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that UPND is a party in decline that has failed to wake up and smell the coffee. They have failed to realise that Zambians simply don’t give a damn about their court petitions and are more interested in development and an effective opposition party that is constantly selling itself as a viable alternative to the sitting government.

The results of the Chilanga by-election were not a surprise to me. I had already began hearing whispers before the election from ordinary people in what was a clear UPND stronghold that they were fed up with UPND and wanted development.

They have been neglected for so long and are no longer inspired by the UPND and its president Mr Hakainde Hichilema. These are things being discussed in villages, farms and minibuses. There is simply no reasonable excuse for a 20 year old opposition party to be ceding ground in its strongholds to the ruling party after coming so close to winning the 2016 elections, a mere 2 years ago.

The UPND pressed the self-destruct button by selecting one of the worst possible candidates to contest in Chilanga, probably feeling overconfident of winning as they did in the last two Presidential elections. They took two shotguns, took very careful aim and shot themselves in both feet!

So poor is their recent decision making that even the Zambian Watchdog which traditionally has been their mouthpiece parted ways with them for this Chilanga by-election. I cannot see proper advisers, strategists or an effective media team in the UPND. It is almost as if they have given up and are demoralised as decay and decline are beginning to take their toll.

All this bodes very badly for Zambia because it leads to complacency in the ruling party which is usually followed by excesses and abuse of power. We are slowly heading towards a situation whereby the opposition are so impotent that people decide to keep the ruling party in power, not because they are doing well, but because there is no credible opposition.

At the rate they are going, the UPND might as well disband and kiss the 2021 elections goodbye. The people of Zambia can only give them so many chances before they move on and pick a different party. Newly formed parties like the National Democratic Congress (NDC) under Mr Chishimba Kambwili are having a greater impact already.

And yet history is on the side of UPND in terms of potentially wrestling power from the PF. History shows that Zambians become tired of the ruling party after ten years. Facing certain electoral defeat in the upcoming 1974 elections to an opposition coalition that would include the late Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe and Harry Mwaanga Nkumbula, first president Kenneth Kaunda forced through a one party state in 1973 after a kangaroo Constitutional Review Commission whose outcome was pre-determined. He imprisoned Mr Kapwepwe for one year during the commission to prevent him effectively campaigning against the moves to introduce a one party state. Over a hundred leaders of Mr Kapwepwe’s party were also arrested in 1972.

The next 18 years under one party rule saw a decline in the Zambian economy and standards of living with a massive debt that was 240% of GDP by 1991. There was no one to oppose the ruling United National Independence Party (UNIP) that became drunk with power and imagined themselves indestructible as they chanted slogans that whoever touches UNIP would be burned by fire.

Fast forward to 31st October 1991 and the elections of that day kicked out UNIP and handed the MMD a 75% resounding landslide victory. The MMD started well and I believe to this day that the first Cabinet under second President Frederick JT Chiluba that comprised the likes of Levy P. Mwanawasa, Dipak Patel, Simon Zukas, Emmanuel Kasonde, Eric Silwamba, etc., was the best that Zambia has ever had in its history. There was a real sense of hope in 1991 that Zambia would be turned around and made very prosperous.

Sadly, Zambia’s path to real prosperity under MMD was curtailed by greed and corruption, notwithstanding the many good things MMD did for this country to reverse the huge economic, social and political decline under UNIP. Despite starting well, the MMD fell prey to the same arrogance of power that UNIP had for 18 years.

After ten years of MMD rule in 2001, the people of Zambia were ready to kick them out. The UPND at that time was merely 3 years old but making such a powerful impact under their late president Anderson K. Mazoka. The 2001 elections saw the MMD lose 71% support from Zambians as Mr Mwanawasa was elected by only 29% of the vote, the worst results of any President in Zambia’s history with Mr Mazoka garnering 27%.

If any of the next six candidates on the results list – Christon Tembo (13%), Tilyenji Kaunda (10%), Godfrey Miyanda (8%), Benjamin Y. Mwila (5%), Michael C. Sata (3%) or Nevers S. Mumba (2%) – had joined forces with Mr Mazoka, or if the opposition had backed one candidate, we would be talking a different story today.

A combination of Chiluba’s electoral dribbling, fragmented opposition and confusion among the electorate on who to back out of eleven candidates gave the MMD a lifeline that enabled them rule for another ten years. Mr Mwanawasa turned out to be an unlikely hero to many Zambians by actively fighting corruption and bringing back integrity to the office of President. He also benefited from the foundation Mr Chiluba laid of a liberalised economy, HIPC preparations and reversing the disastrous UNIP policies.

This gave Mr Mwanawasa a second term in 2006 as he comfortably won the elections. The fourth MMD term was finished by Mr Rupiah Bwezani Banda after the untimely death of Mr Mwanawasa in 2008. By this time, Mr Michael Chilufya Sata and the PF were in the ascendancy. Mr Sata was an extremely effective opposition leader and proved to be very politically astute by coming within 4 percentage points of winning the 2008 presidential by-election.

I never imagined Mr Sata ever ruling Zambia and he did the seemingly impossible by unseating the ruling MMD under Mr Banda in 2011, despite Zambia having the best economic statistics since the final dark UNIP days in the late 1980s. The “Ten Year Rule” for Zambia had been firmly established.

If the UPND were a more effective opposition party, they would have a very good chance of winning in 2021 because of the “Ten Year Rule”. Signs that ordinary Zambians are becoming fed up with the ruling party are everywhere, but I just don’t see the UPND taking advantage of the “Ten Year Rule”. I just don’t see the UPND winning in 2021 at the moment.

Unless…

By Sishuwa Sishuwa

On 15 June 2018, the heart of Daniel Chibbwalu Munkombwe, a nationalist and veteran practitioner of Zambian politics, ceased to beat. It is easy in the bloom of youth and health to forget our mortality. If there is anything that death should teach or remind us, it is the need to celebrate the ephemera and gift that each day is, to live now and in the present. We sometimes miss out on life when we seek more, when we seek permanence, for what we have is now and we must live in the moment, for that is all there is to life – now. As one of our prominent local artists, Petersen Zagaze, has sung, ‘Ku manda kuli boring’! That song, in my view, summarises what life is: alive!

Well, Munkombwe is no longer alive, but he has left behind a timeless gift in form of knowledge, expressed through his recently-published memoirs that capture his experiences at the centre of national politics for over half a century. Published by Fleetfoot (a local publishing company that provides an important platform for works that are unlikely to win the approval of commercial publishers), The Politics of Influence: an Autobiography of Daniel Munkombwe is an enlightening, engaging and pacy read, which convincingly meets its stated aim: ‘to share with others the story of my long and colourful political career, which has given me a vast insight of the politics of our country and its leaders at various levels’. In a narrative interspersed with superb storytelling, humour and style, Munkombwe accomplishes his goal in less than 150 pages, charting the course of his life, from an adversity-filled childhood to his education in colonial Zimbabwe, to his involvement in the nationalist struggle, and to his role in each of the post-colonial governments.

Having been an active political leader in the decolonisation movement, in the first eight years of post-colonial independence, which witnessed a competitive multiparty and democratic political system, in the one-party state in which the United National Independence Party (UNIP) was the sole legal political formation, in the two decades of Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) rule, and, most recently, in the Patriotic Front government, Munkombwe’s personal experiences illustrate the broader history of Zambia because he has been able to see changes spanning across these different historical periods. If history is the study of events and the role of individuals in those events, then Munkombwe possesses the credentials to write it, for he is a bastion of evidence and experience. Born in Choma’s Mbole village on 16 May 1932, Munkombwe, known for his “politics of benefits” ideology, retains the distinction of having served all the Presidents that Zambia has had since independence (bar incumbent Edgar Lungu) as well as six different political parties – the African National Congress (ANC), the People’s Democratic Congress (PEDCO), UNIP, the MMD, the United Party for National Development (UPND) and the PF. His commendable decision to capture this lengthy involvement in public life in a sharply written personal narrative is a feat that should be emulated by his political peers and juniors. The Politics of Influence, available in Bookworld and other local stores, shades new light on several subjects of national significance and has much to tell us about Munkombwe himself.

First, Munkombwe’s memoirs teach us that there are many more heroes and heroines who contributed to the liberation of Zambia than is presently acknowledged. Munkombwe himself is a classic example. Since independence, there has been a sustained and arguably deliberate attempt by UNIP figures to project an inaccurate impression that the struggle for national independence was initiated and secured by UNIP alone. This is despite the fact that UNIP only came into existence after 1959, just five years before independence and over a decade after the campaign for self-determination was launched, in July 1948, by the Northern Rhodesia African Congress (renamed the ANC in 1952). Munkombwe’s memoirs contribute to the deconstruction of this dominant narrative and bring to light many unheralded people from the ANC and trade union movement who poured their resources and even their lives into the nationalist struggle. These include Mungoni Liso, Paul Mambo, Job Michelo, Robinson Puta, Godwin Mbikusita Lewanika, Omelo Mumba and Dixon Konkola, who was actually the first president of UNIP. Munkombwe highlights the fact that it was the ANC that laid the foundation of the liberation of Zambia, and that UNIP only completed the work started (and nearly secured) by Harry Mwaanga Nkumbula’s nationalist organisation. For the ‘born-free’ generation, the memoirs will broaden their knowledge and understanding of the patriots who fought for independence and the enormous sacrifices that went with their efforts. For the current and future national leadership, the memoirs are a challenge to broaden the definition of independence heroes and heroines to award recognition to those to whom it is due.

Second, Munkombwe’s autobiography explains his long-cherished and candid, if controversial, philosophy of “politics of benefits”, which would have been a more fitting title for the book. In April 2013, Munkombwe publicly stated that “there is no more patriotism. Patriotism was only there when we were fighting colonialists, so everybody is adopting my philosophy of politics of benefits. I know people will say Munkombwe has gone into government because he wants to eat but who does not want to eat?” We learn through his memoirs that the “politics of benefits” idea has its origins in the frustrated expectations of independence and the non-inclusive nature of the newly-independent government insofar as the composition and distribution of public positions and responsibilities was concerned.

After the winning of independence, President Kenneth Kaunda moved to establish a government devoid of some of the ANC leaders who had played a not insignificant role in the leadership and financing of the nationalist struggle. In April 1965, ANC leader Nkumbula publicly challenged his unhappy party lieutenants to join the Kaunda government and secure the benefits of their toil. After a series of intra-party discussions, a list of ANC loyalists was drawn and prepared for submission to Kaunda and for deployment into the government, so that they, like their UNIP counterparts, could ‘eat’ too. Munkombwe was one of those appointed. Clearly, he is not afraid to speak his mind and present his views, and leaves the question of whether or not this resolution was right to the reader’s judgement.

Third, Munkombwe’s book contributes to national discourse and the documentation of history. Memoirs or autobiographical writings provide a particularised and alternative discourse free from the rigid rules of peer-reviewed academic publications; a unique way of explaining things and interpreting historical events using one’s understanding; and a much more localised, native or indigenous analysis and construction of national history that includes subjects or aspects that academic researchers, for instance, are unlikely to emphasise in their writings. A skeptic, educated elite or Euro-centric writer, for instance, is likely to pick up on Munkombwe’s lack of higher education and present him as an uninformed person rather than a militant and uncompromising patriot who never dishonoured the cause of freedom.

As we embark on the long journey to Zambia’s centenary celebrations in 2064, it is important that we cultivate a localised discourse that helps us to understand our evolution including what really happened in the preceding fifty years of the Zambian nationhood, to define and shape “the Zambian Dream”, and to set the stage for what we want Zambia to be in the next five decades. What we accomplished fifty-four years ago was simply the first step of a long walk to freedom from want. In order to realise our shared dreams and vision of attaining a better life for all, it is necessary to continue to ask such questions as: what are the fundamental objectives and goals that we are trying to achieve? What are the key elements of our strategy towards those objectives and goals? What are and what have been the most significant obstacles, and how shall we deal with them? What successes and failures do we draw from the past five decades? How do we secure and sustain the progress we have made? What are the big strategic needs and opportunities? Munkombwe’s memoirs should be viewed as a useful, if partial, contribution to that discourse.

Munkombwe also devotes attention to discussing other important national topics and his role in them such as the Choma Declaration, President Kaunda’s release of political prisoners such as Edward Shamwana just before he was defeated in the landmark 1991 elections, the formation of the UPND in 1998, and his stints in the governments of presidents Levy Mwanawasa and Rupiah Banda. He ends with a chapter titled ‘I Feel Betrayed’ in which he narrates his fallout with President Banda just before the 2011 elections. Banda not only questioned Munkombwe’s political input, but further removed the veteran politician from the presidential campaign team, a move that did not sit easily with ‘Old Daniel’.

All in all, Munkombwe’s book is a worthy and welcome publication that goes a long way in addressing the dearth of political writing in Zambia and the needs of students of Zambian political history. It represents an account of what he witnessed and experienced, his interpretation of the historical events in which he was involved, and should be read for what it is: a personal memoir. Autobiographies, especially those of politicians, are notorious for their authors’ appetite for self-congratulation and overdramatisation, their penchant for description rather than analysis, and their highly selective presentation of what they know. Munkombwe’s memoirs suffer from these and other flaws. For instance, what political value did successive presidents see in Munkombwe to keep appointing him to the same position of Southern Province minister or ruling party chairperson, in spite of his repeated failure to wrestle the region from opposition control? How did Munkombwe himself manage to make himself relevant amidst successive political alliances and governments?

In what ways is ‘loyalty’, if one can call it that, forged within a ‘politics of benefits’? What are the less visible social ties or networks that politicians like Munkombwe draw on that are nonetheless important to their political careers? After fifty years in politics, what does he consider to be his legacy? Munkombwe does not answer these questions and it is tempting to dismiss his book as not very useful when wearing critical academic lens, and to insist that history is better written by people who possess the necessary qualifications and analytical tools and who are detached from their subjects. This is because writing about oneself and others who are still alive and involved in politics generally leads to self-censorship and feelings of conceit.

Yet dismissing Munkombwe’s effort on account of its weaknesses would be a disservice. It is also probably too much to expect someone who is still actively involved in politics, as Munkombwe was at the time the book came out in 2014, to write a perfectly honest and detailed account of themselves and their relationship with others. What is important is that Munkombwe has told his story, and thrown the challenge to other Zambians, including political leaders, to share their own stories and help fill the gaps that might exist in his work. After all, we are all witnesses, and every witness has a story. Munkombwe has shared his. What is your story? What is my story?