By Dr. Daniel K. Maswahu

There have been numerous post-September 2011 election accusations of tribalism against the new PF-lead Zambian leadership. This arises of course from the choice of appointees that the Office of the President has made (and continues to make). The continuing debate surrounding the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 appears to add fuel to this hot discussion. Irresponsible people in the opposition continue to delude themselves that they can make political mileage of these two undoubtedly related issues. The current Zambian leadership have so far responded responsibly and as best they can by providing an avenue for discussion for the later item, releasing all persons imprisoned during the 2011 Mongu riots and establishing a Commission of Inquiry that will eventually deliver justice to the families of those killed or injured during the same. Those who subscribe to the notion that the Barotseland Agreement issue will be resolved in the short term and even less the intermediate term (did someone say 90 days?) must reassess their road map on the way forward. And of course their sanity.

For the sake of those with short attention spans (only) two pertinent facts will be presented in their veritable factual (and therefore inherently hard to swallow) context. The first of these unpalatable facts is that there is absolutely no constitutional constraint for the Office of the President to appoint a leadership team based on “balanced” tribal origin. The founding fathers (principally Dr. Kenneth Kaunda) and mothers of this nation reckoned it was necessary in those times to provide a sense of equitable distribution of the “spoils” captured from the retreating British colonialist. There were indeed very few schooled people in that era and if educational qualification was used as the criteria of appointment, the Zambian civil service would have comprised of a pitiful handful of (read as less than 20) totally inexperienced people to provide some form of governance to a political entity of daunting geographical dimensions littered with at least five major tribal and cultural groupings made up of 72 or so distinguishable sub-groupings. Given that we (47 years latter) have substantially more educated people amongst us, the relevant question that demands an answer is whether it is reasonable to continue being fixated in a mental state (tribal distribution of appointments) that views our country as a conquest that must be looted or indeed plundered.

It is abundantly clear that the era of the political freedom fighter has come and gone. The economic freedom fighter whose hour has in all its fullness arrived will require more than sticks, stones and a fearsome visage to make the enemy (hunger, poverty, disease, ignorance) scamper for the cover of the nearest bush. The African countries who have recognised the role of the political freedom fighter and moved away from over-placating that stage of their growth have without exception progressed further economically and in other aspects.

The second brutal (historical) fact is that it made very simple administrative common sense for the British to hand over the then Northern Rhodesian territory in its entirety as a single unit and let any tribal or ethnic concerns sort themselves out. By the late fifties Whitehall had no doubts about three things – the protectorates of sub-Saharan Africa were an economic nuisance, an administrative waste of foreign policy and provided absolutely no strategic military advantage. The golden window of opportunity for the establishment of an independent nation or kingdom of Barotseland within what was Northern Rhodesia was in the five years between 1961 and 1966. Any consideration of Barotseland other than it being a part of Zambia after that window of opportunity is in the studied opinion of some an exercise in warm cuddly nostalgia and a massaging of tribal ego (begging the question – who doesn’t have fond memories of their home or the good old days?). Additional extensions of what is considered Barotseland into the Caprivi Strip, eastern Angola, a smaller part of Congo and how far eastward it extended into Zambia would have undoubtedly left the entire region to this day reeling in border disputes.

We of course are privileged to still have in our midst persons who were present when Zambia came into being in the corridors of Westminster. I am sure if there was or is anything of particular interest to add to the Barotseland Agreement debate they will in the first place provide the relevant facts to the existing commission. There are some who harbour the opinion that the silence of the relevant founding persons itself speaks volumes on the matter. Then there are others who think this silence is golden.

The Challenges and the Opportunities.

The geographical dimensions, the sheer size of Zambia make meaningful and sustainable development difficult in many remote parts, Western province being no exception. Consider that Kafue National Park itself is about as large as England. As far as continental position is concerned, the landlocked nature of Zambia render it fairly “rural” in comparison to the countries that have a sea or ocean front where trade and sea-based commerce has been flourishing for centuries.

The regionally central position of the country has not been sufficiently capitalised in terms of transport infrastructure. Zambia’s potential as a unspoilt tourist centre goes begging as a direct result of piece-meal and half-hearted infrastructure investment that have been restricted to periods immediately preceding major elections. The three international airports (located Lusaka, Ndola and Livingstone) remain the size of air-strips in comparison to counterparts in other countries, maintaining more or less the same size they had in the sixties and seventies (correct me if I am wrong please). The international bus terminal in Lusaka is a crying shame, the home of the homeless and stranded travellers, a filthy mess, a health hazard with harassment as the order of the day. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that under the current system any development will be easier to place in the existing centres of communication (principally along the line of rail) before it trickles outward to less developed remote areas – it is the natural course of matters.. The existing railway service is itself at the edge of collapse.

The challenges Zambia faces represent amazing opportunities. Instead of waiting for government, the people must avail themselves to the alternative of a bright future. Zambia still remains one of the most difficult countries in the world to set up a business in (for both locals and foreigners) despite a recent slight improvement in the global rankings. This is part of the adventure and can be sorted out in time with the appropriate political will.

The day that government no longer remains the largest employer in the country is the day that Zambia can be considered to have made a significant milestone towards attaining economic freedom and moved away from unsustainable dependence on a central government system. On that day, political appointments will (hopefully) be of little consequence because the economic development of the nation will be very squarely in the hands of the people. The number of those who not merely believe but know that federating the provinces is the best answer to allegations of tribalism and the greater part of the solution to the Barotseland Agreement debate has reached critical mass. With a federal system, the development of a region or province will fall very squarely in the hands of the people themselves and they will be in no position to blame anyone but themselves. A leaner, meaner civil service backed by a kick-behind private sector is clearly the way forward.

(The author wishes the record to show he is not Bemba by birth or ancestry and is not averse to the possibility of parenting off-spring in that direction – in other words, let’s not take ourselves too seriously).

By Godwin M Kaluwe President: Barotseland Peace Foundation

By 1963 the territory of Barotseland protectorate which is now called Western Province in Zambia, was administered jointly, with Northern Rhodesia protectorate by, and for British convenience for various economic and political reasons, in which case a protectorate within another protectorate occurred. Barotseland’s quest for independence was on record since 1911. It was inevitable that both nations would be free, the question was when and how so, two free and separate states named Zambia and Barotseland or one Zambia one nation. Through the BA64 one Zambia and one nation would prevail.

As nationalism mounted pressure on the British colonial government in the 1960s, independence became a reality. Prime Minister David Kenneth Kaunda was well advised to lobby the support of Barotseland even though the BRE had long withdrawn from some parts of southern province, Caprivi Strip of Namibia, Eastern Angola, Victoria falls of Zimbabwe, Kasane of Botswana, NW Province, Central province and Copper-belt province. According to honorable Sikota Wina, this was a smart move in that it helped the newly formed government of Zambia reclaim the mining rights of copper-belt from the BSAC which would have continued for 99 years since the Lockner treaties with Lewanika signed in the late 1800s. “Mr. Wina said the treaties provided that the Lozi King Lewanika had been granted protectorate status by Britain through the Lochner Concession of June 1890, in return for giving Cecil Rhodes’ BSAC monopoly over mining and commercial rights in his territory. He said this monopoly could have been earning BSAC fat royalties up to 1986.” (Kasuba Mulenga Report, 2010)

Barotseland was not really obliged to be independent along with Northern Rhodesia. In fact it was the desire of the BRE to be independent as Barotseland, but the British at the time thought Barotseland had no sufficient economy and industrial capacity to stand alone without copper-belt. In order for the two separate nations to be awarded independence by the British, however, it would require a special agreement to replace Lewanika’s old treaties and concessions. The BA64 became that agreement. With that vehicle in place, and only then did the British feel comfortable to surrender Barotseland into the hands of a new form of government, also expected to continue facilitating Barotseland with her autonomy within Zambia to be, this time a nation within a nation, as was the case with a protectorate within a protectorate. KK assured the Litunga and the people of Barotseland to trust him and never to worry as this arrangement was not new.

Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, then Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia later addressed the Barotse National Council on 6th August 1964 concerning the Barotseland Agreement which was to come into force on 24th October 1964.

“….It is the government’s full intention that the Barotseland Agreement will be honored fully after independence…. The government has no wish to interfere with the day to day running of the internal affairs of Barotseland. This is the responsibility of the Barotse government and the intention of the Central Government will be no more than to give the Barotse Government its maximum assistance and co-operation. …The customary rights in Barotseland will remain with the Litunga, National Council and the District heads of Kutas. He added that “the government is satisfied that government requirements for land for development projects in Barotseland will receive the active co-operation of the Barotse government, this is all the Central Government is asking for…..” (Nyambe, 2010)

Despite this assurance from KK the Litunga did not believe that KK was sincere. As a result the BNC wrote an appeal to the British government requesting to have separate independence, of which the British government was reluctant to do as it would cost them more money to deliver. Thus, encouraging Barotseland to make a deal with Northern Rhodesia was perceived cheaper for the British government, beneficial to Northern Rhodesia as it would close the copper-belt mining ownership rights issue once and for all, and would also leave Barotseland attached to Zambia like Zanzibar with Tanzania, or arrange to be like Lesotho and Swaziland in South Africa.

[pullquote]Barotseland was not really obliged to be independent along with Northern Rhodesia. In fact it was the desire of the BRE to be independent as Barotseland, but the British at the time thought Barotseland had no sufficient economy and industrial capacity to stand alone without copper-belt. [/pullquote]

Through the efforts and influence of the Lozi elite such as Arthur Wina, Mundia Nalumino, Sipalo and others, the message of one Zambia one nation was preached as gospel truth and salvation for Barotseland and her future development. Hence many people voted for one Zambia one nation in the infamous referendum that followed later. Even though today some reliable sources allege that the elections were rigid forcing Barotseland to become part of Zambia. Whatever the case was, it was accepted and we gladly became Zambians. Soon after independence KK and his government sort to abrogate the BA64 in 1969 fulfilling the Litunga, Mwanawina Lewanika’s fears. When the local people in Barotseland protested KK declared state of emergency and arrested several activists without trial. Since KK’s time every effort to address the BA64 has met with manipulation, indifference, threats even killings by successive governments respectively.

[pullquote]Does the government understand how important Mongu/Kalabo road is to the people of Barotseland, politics aside? Are the people of Barotseland asking too much?[/pullquote]

The BA64 has never been handled properly. People on blogs insult each other for nothing. Only Love, Peace and Respect for each other will help aide the process for resolving this impasse. It is now more than 47 years since Zambia became independent, but development in Barotseland is still a dream not yet fulfilled. How long will the people of Barotseland wait for the promise of development to come? Does the government understand how important Mongu/Kalabo road is to the people of Barotseland, politics aside? Are the people of Barotseland asking too much?

The people of Barotseland now hope that the government of President Michael Sata which they voted in trust, which has so far demonstrated civility, consideration and willingness to dialogue, will bring this matter to a peaceful conclusion through the commission of inquiry. The whole world is watching to see how Zambian presidents keep their promises. The abrogation of the BA64 is the first born of Zambian corruption. The International community will respect Mr. Sata even more should he be transparent on this issue, unlike his predecessors. On the other hand, if KK who is still alive could advise Mr. Sata and the nation to do the right thing, KK would die with great honor.