By Dr.Charles Ngoma
This year the Zambian people are going to vote in the 10th Presidential and Parliamentary general election, since independence from Britain in 1964, when one excludes the bye-election brought on by the death of Dr Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, if my count is correct.

We must be a dap hand at this now and our electoral processes should be refined. The 1991 elections were probably the most democratic since 1969. The cry at the time was ‘for change’ just as it is now. There are however several differences in the state of the Republic in 1991 from what it is today.

The first difference is the state of the economy. In 1991, the Zambian economy was a shambles. Meal coupons, long queues for essential commodities, run away inflation and scarcity of convertible currency. Zambians were well known for shopping trips to Malawi, Zaire and Zimbabwe.

Zambia was in the throes of a crippling debt burden that would have taken forever to repay. Schools run out of stationary and hospitals of essential medicines. Admission to hospital meant carrying your own blood for transfusion, your own gloves for the surgery and your own hypodermic needles. Indeed, one even carried their own paper for the clinical notes to be written on! There was nothing to write home about public transport.
Things are very different today. I will not exhaust the reader with reiterating what has been sung ad nauseum.

The second difference is democracy. We had just started on the path to multi-party politics once again and this process was led by a ‘movement’ to multi-party democracy. This juggernaut was unstoppable and to his eternal credit, Dr Kaunda recognised the will of the people and with minimal resistance allowed the change that was inevitable. Would to God that many other despots in Africa and abroad would take a leaf from this instead of tenaciously clinging to power while their hands drip with the blood of their people! Now we have as many political parties in Zambia as there are night clubs in Lusaka! It is free for all now and one is at loss many a time to know who the members are and even remember the names of some of the political parties. It would be alright if they had causes, like Green party for the environment, Labour for the trade unions and workers or even race like the British National Party and other neo-Nazi groups in Europe. The Barotse Freedom Movement has a cause, but is not a registered party. In a democracy it should, really! Ideas must be countered with ideas. But, no. For most of the parties, there is no purpose other than megalomania on the part of the leaders and founders that THEY, and THEY alone can make President of 13 million Zambians!

The third difference is most interesting, and it is what has contributed to the title of this article. The infestation of ‘political prostitutes!’ Many people ditched UNIP to join the MMD in 1991. At the time the direction of the chemical reaction was osmotic across the divide. This time however, the traffic is in many different directions so that it looks more like an equilibrium has been reached. As many as are leaving the ruling party, many are joining and rejoining. This is a most curious political phenomenon un-precedented in world politics. I cannot think of any country in recent history that has witnessed such a scenario. The change of party allegiance is not directed by ideology but purely by ‘hunger’ on one hand and ‘corruption’ on another. It is quiet clear that because the Zambian economy is doing so well, everyone in these parties wants a hand in the pie and if they see their prospects of a vantage position slipping away, they jump camp and bat for the other team.

Now I ask, ‘What in the world is going on?’  So, what is driving this desire for change of government as well as change political affiliations?

I will not deal with the reasons people join MMD but why they leave, at a time when the government has done so well on the economy that it is difficult to find fault. In the western democracies, a government that is registering economic growth year after year is bound to be returned with a resounding and landslide victory at the polls. Why is the MMD government appearing to be sailing against the wind?

Let us analyse the reasons that we hear for change.

1. ‘President Banda is corrupt.’

There is no evidence that has been provided to substantiate this allegation even by those who ‘dig deeper.’ It is not long when we were all treated to a dossier which catalogued the ‘matrix’ of plunder of national resources by the late Dr Chiluba’s administration. The allegations of theft against a popular Dr Chiluba started while he was still in office. Again and again we read about ‘Dr Chiluba and his tandem of thieves’ until the late Dr Mwanawasa’s hand was forced against his sponsor. The rest is history. Why then don’t we read another ‘matrix?’ So far, I am afraid, it is only rumour and innuendo. There has been talk about the President’s sons and now his wife getting rich when they were poor before this. Isn’t this the case with many other citizens of Zambia who have grasped opportunities?

There are several Zambians who have made it big on the Copperbelt as suppliers to the privatised mines. Is it corruption only when you are a relative of the head of State? If there is any evidence that the President’s sons have committed economic crimes against the Zambian people, let us see the evidence now. There is a ‘whistle blower’s’ Act which protects anyone with information on corrupt practices. Why is there no one trekking to Bwinjimfumu Road to spill the beans at this most crucial time? I submit that this is mere slander and politicking which must be dismissed with all the contempt it deserves. The removal of abuse of office clause in the ACC Act is cited as an example of corruption, but truth be told, is there anyone who is in prison today who could not have been convicted in the absence of that clause? Me thinks not. It is Dr Chiluba’s failed case that is the chief cause for this notion that President Banda’s administration is weak against corruption.

Just the ONE case! It looks like some people would have been satisfied if all the others had not been convicted but Chiluba alone. That is not justice but vindictiveness.

Can Mr Sata decisively deal with corruption? Mr Sata was in very senior positions throughout his checkered political career. He was Lusaka Governor once. Was there no corruption in Lusaka City council then? If there was, why did we not hear of the Governor denouncing the corrupt or even reporting them to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) or the disbanded SITET? Later on, Mr Sata became the third most powerful man in the country, and right under his nose, his boss and confidante was alleged to be stealing! Dr Chiluba was acquitted of theft but convicted of defrauding his country (whatever that means).

Mr Sata therefore, can be excused for failing to see any theft on the part of Dr Chiluba, because Dr Chiluba was an innocent man. Mr Sata was also right to declare that if he won the 2006 Presidential elections, he would drop all charges against Dr Chiluba. Whichever way you look at it, Mr Sata would be no different. What he seems to be good at, is to store knowledge of the wrongdoings of his friends in a particular memory bank and use that data for leverage, whenever it comes in handy! More or less like the story that the Evangelist Reinhard Bonke used to tell about the little chef and the stollen chicken! Every time the big chef wanted something from the little chef, he would just say, ‘Remember the chicken!’ The little chef would do his bidding for fear of being exposed for the chicken he once stole.

There were people who sensed corruption in Dr Chiluba’s administration and resigned their positions, the late Dr Mwanawasa being one of them. Was Mr Sata so blind that he could not see corruption? If he did not see it then, does one have to be a head of State to see it? If he did, why didn’t he say anything about it, while he even pushed that the man whom everyone else was calling a thief, should be given another term in office against the law! Mr Sata has proved to be a man of inaction more often than not.

2. Abuse of public media.

I don’t understand this. All programmes on the ZNBC television and radio must be paid for by someone. That one, is either the taxpayer or advertisers. Who is paying for the ‘Stand up for Zambia’ documentaries? If these documentaries are partisan and divisive, the tax payer should not fund them. I have never watched the program so I cannot judge the content. I am however, reminded of the revelation of the State House tunnels by the Chiluba administration to malign the former Kaunda administration.

The State house is government property and so were the tunnels, but they were made to look like personal safety measures for a selfish President. Every Head of State must be able to continue to command his forces from a safe house when at war. President Bush was taken 4 storeys under the White House on 9/11. Can it be right that Mr Obama should ridicule all previous US Presidents by exposing the tunnels under 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC? Mr Sata was very part and parcel of the administration that did this, and he did not complain about abuse of public media then! He will do exactly the same tomorrow.

3. Inspite of the economic boom, people are still poor.

Now, this is one of the silliest arguments that can only come from the mouth a Bolshevik. It does not matter whether the economy grew by 100% (impossible feat), there will always be poor people and un-employed people in the country! There will be people who will make bad choices in investments and will lose all their money. There will be people who will succumb to loose living and squander their estate.

There will be people who will just not make it in the ‘dog eat dog’ world of capitalism. It is not the duty of the state to put nshima on tables. The state must produce the right environment for reward of thrift and level the playing field for equal opportunities. This means that it is government’s role to provide the tools by which the citizens can create wealth. The only way a government can put money in people’s pockets while at the same time providing the same level of services is to print more money and fuel inflation! We have been through this before in the 80’s, when year on year our salaries went up in relative terms, but in reality not.

Mr Mugabe did put money in people’s pockets recently, and a lot of money, so much so that people had to carry it in wheel barrows! Seize the opportunities and create your own wealth! Complaining that the economy is booming but people have no jobs is a non-starter. Would we rather have a bad State economy and still everyone employed? That is what we had in the 80s!

4. President Banda is undemocratic.

I am not privy to the goings on behind closed doors in Cabinet and State House. There may be some truth in this or there may not be. Whatever the case may be people will never agree on everything in life. At the end of the day, some ONE must make the final decision and the buck stops with him. The President will take advice, weigh it in his own mind and come up with a decision at the end of the day.

That decision may not be that of some people or even of the majority, but that is the reason why we elect ONE person to be President and if things go pear-shaped, he has no right to say that this is what the people wanted so it is not his fault! Indeed, the President stands or falls on the outcomes of the decisions he makes.

Take for example, the issue of mobile hospitals. He made the decision to deploy these amidst opposition from some quarters. So far, the vast majority of those opposed are in the cities, are non-medical and not patients who have used the facilities. Should a sick man in Shangombo, wait 2 or 3 years for a hospital to be built? When a hospital, with brick and mortar is built, can it be equipped and manned to the same level as a Provincial hospital or UTH? There is no doubt that Zambia NEEDS more hospitals as permanent structures, but the nature of illness is such that it cannot wait for Christmas!

5. MMD is tired.

Well, this is an interesting one. The MMD has led the country with 3 different leaders since 1991. Many of the people who are outside the MMD and wanting to form government are the same people who formed the MMD in the first place. If we want real change, we would need to bring in people who have never tasted ‘sweetness’ of government at all!
All of the major political parties have in them people who are ‘true blue’ albeit mostly black and blue from many a political bruise.

It is NOT change to bring in these same characters who left MMD out of political expediency and cowardly opportunism. The MMD manifesto was written by some of them, so what has gone wrong? The prediction to grow the economy by 6% and to attain MDGs by 2030 was made by the same individuals who are now criticising the more than 6% growth, less than 10% inflation and bumper harvests and well on the way to attaining the goal of a middle income country! The one legacy that one former Minister of Agriculture left, is not bumper harvest but thousands of dead pigs! If he returns, pigs will fly!

The alternative to the MMD as things stand now does not represent progressive change at all.  So, I ask again, ‘What on earth is going on?’ Why are people changing parties like socks? The answer lies not in the fault of the government nor its leader, but in the belly and desire to have corrupting influence on the head of state.

I am all for change, but not for change’s sake. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.