By Dr Charles Ngoma:-
First of all, I should like to congratulate the Patriotic Front and President Sata for winning the 2011 Tripartite elections in Zambia after a spirited campaign.
Now that the election is over, it will be nice to look back and see where exactly did it go wrong for the MMD and President Banda? In many democracies in the world, where the economy is booming, inflation is low and interest rates are reasonable, it is unthinkable for the ruling party to lose power. Therefore, I believe that the fact that the MMD lost says a lot about the weaknesses of the Banda administration than the strengths of Mr Sata.
Why do I say so? Well, Mr Sata was rejected by Zambians three times before and yet his message did not change. The economy and many parameters actually became more and more favourable for the ruling party than ever before. In my past article, I did show that we are not where we should be indeed, but we are definitely far much better off than we were in the past.
I am sorry to say, however that the common denominator to President Sata’s loss in 2006 and President Banda’s loss this time round, is the late Dr Frederick Chiluba. President Banda miscalculated on the deep seated feelings that Zambians had concerning the late President.
The turnover of life in Zambia is very quick and as such, young people who were not party to the victors and heroes of yesterday, fill up the electoral registers very quickly. More than a million voters were not born when Dr Chiluba wrested power from Dr Kaunda.
Indeed, to most of them, all they remember about the man is that he presided over the time of great plunder of the nation’s wealth and if they were unemployed, he had something to do with it.
President Banda was made out to have interfered with the Judiciary to free Chiluba and while at that time many would have exculpated him, his more recent remarks during and after the funeral, seemed to justify that understanding.
Mr Banda should not have been openly so close to Dr Chiluba and while he was facing charges. If MMD has to have a post morterm of it’s performance, it must start here. Dr Chiluba was a liability to Mr Sata in 2006, and Mr Sata quickly learnt from that poisonous association and let go. He handed the poisoned chalice to Mr Banda and this led to Mr Banda’s loss.
The whole fight against corruption was shipwrecked at the rock of Chiluba. Time will tell whether Mr Banda interfered with the constitutional office of the Director of Public Prosecution or not.
The second cause for failure was the perception that the MMD were too close to the minning companies that were extracting vast amounts of profits without any benefits to the local people’s. There were very inadequate explanations about how much the mines had invested into the mines in the first place and how much they were making in profits.
Everyone knew that copper prices had risen to record heights, but it was never made clear that it is the result of initial investment and capitalisation that production had doubled since the days of Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines (ZCCM). The last minute attempt to get money from the mines to improve inner city roads was too little too late and was very poorly communicated to the people. In fact, the President said one thing, while his Minister of Finance said another.
The third cause of failure was the government’s failure to make good on a very important promise. President Banda promised Parliament in 2009 that the public media would be privatised. The paranoia that kept the public media houses in state hands was an achille’s heel. Over and above this, the public media embarked on a full scale war against the Patriotic Front and Mr Sata. People love to support the underdog, and more when they see one so unfairly treated. Even though Mr Banda denied that he had editorial control of the public media houses, it did not cut the mustard with the people.
The public media must be privatised or made independent of government, otherwise, even if the state has no influence on editorial decisions, as long as the editors are employed by state agencies, there will self censorship in favour of the ruling party.
The fourth cause, is perhaps the nemesis of all African politics. The failure to separate government from the ruling party affairs. I warned about this in the ‘open letter to the President’ shortly after Mr Banda took over. The days of the party and it’s government are over. We cannot accept a situation where a provincial chairman of a political power goes around behaving as though he is state President, harassing and threatening people at will.
There must be a clear distinction between party business and state business. It is a pity that so many politicians had their umbilical cords cut by the UNIP knife in the One Party state labour ward.
Under this subject, I would include family affairs. We understand that even the head of State is a human being who has family, but it is not proper to have the appearance that sons or daughters have a privilege over other citizens by reason of the filial relationship with the President.
It is in these last 3 Presidencies that children have had such prominence in the affairs of the state. People elect ONE person as President and not a fiefdom or a monarchy. If the new government also fails to recognise this distinction, it will not be long before the Zambian voter bids it farewell too!
Lastly but not least, was the open hostility to certain sections of the society who seemed to disagree with the President. Dr Chiluba was a master of charm when he was under attack. Quiet often, he was able to get out of difficulties with the media with a chuckle and oratory. It is ironic that President Banda was seen to be weak aloof and not in control on the one hand, but was also suspected to have a hand in everything!
President Sata is called such nicknames as ‘king cobra’ and ‘man of action’, which endear him to the voters and yet rejecting Mr Banda who appears to be less demanding and dictatorial. Mr Banda would have done himself a great service had he extended an open and genuine welcome to State House from the media houses that seemed to be against him.
It is strange that in 3 years of his Presidency, he never gave a one to one interview like the one he did after he became Vice President. The public want to see ‘THE PERSON’ in his native environment. Mr Banda could have taken advantage of the same institutions that were against him and open up to them, instead of attacking them publicly. Perhaps this was an abject failure on the part of his press office.
It remains of me however to just say one more thing. Mr Banda served the nation to the best of his ability. Called out of retirement and a crown thrust upon his head through death, he did not shirk his responsibility to serve, but took up the challenge and did well. He obviously could not do everything in the half term but ‘adde paruum paruo magnus aceruus erit’ (add a little to a little and there will be a great heap).
Above all this, his legacy to the country will be the strengthening of our fledgling democracy. He was truly magnanimous in defeat and lives have been spared. He put the country first and his own ambitions last. We turn a new chapter. Now, Zambia’s democracy has come of age, and we hope that we will fix the ugly issues that came to the fore during this last election.
