Levy's demagoguery

Levy's demagoguery
By Editor
Thursday April 26, 2007 [04:00]

It seems that politicians are so accustomed to giving illogical or bad-faith arguments as long as they are intended for their own political gain. And Levy Mwanawasa appears to be among those politicians who think that political demagoguery should be a norm rather than the exception in the practice of politics. On the balance of the facts before us, we think that Levy's demagoguery on the constitution-making process is getting out of hand and the earlier it is clipped the better.

Yes, it is not in dispute that Levy is currently enjoying the privilege of leading our nation. He is the elected leader of Zambia and it is time-wasting for him to keep drumming that unambiguous fact into our heads. But he should not mislead himself into believing that even when he is the leader of this country he cannot be led by the people's wishes.

Levy may be the President of Zambia, but that does not mean that he should act according to his own wishes or aspirations. In case he is mistaken, we are not here as Zambians to sing for him and shout "follow the leader" in whatever he feels and thinks he wants to do for the nation. Instead, Levy has to learn to follow what the majority of the people want to be done in the interest of the nation and not for an individual's personal agenda.

From Levy's tone, we get the impression that he is telling the entire nation that it is only he, together with his colleagues in government, who is capable enough of deciding what is good for us as a nation and that he will give that which he feels we need at a time when he thinks it is right to do so. Are we an impotent or weak citizenry for Levy to just order us anyhow and tell us whatever he feels should come out of his mouth?

Levy has a mandate to lead us, but that does not in any way suggest that he cannot follow the people's popular will on national affairs. And when we talk about the constitution-making process, the people's will has on a number of occasions been made very plain to Levy. The people have told Levy that a new constitution is one of their main priorities and that it should be adopted through an acceptable mode such as a constituent assembly. When Levy is reminded by genuine organisations such as the Oasis Forum of the need to be serious with the constitution-making process and to look at their alternative roadmap, the best he thinks he can do is mock them and refer to some out-of-tune metaphors.

When we talk about the need for a new constitution and giving some seriousness to this process, we are not asking for kindness or benevolence from Levy. We are simply saying that this is what the people want and it is therefore what a sensible government ought to follow. We expect that those in government, especially Levy, should have a good sense of judgement and see where the people's wishes lie on the constitution-making process.

What is even more painful is that we should be discussing these issues today when in fact Levy is on record having told the nation in 2003 that he wanted a new constitution to be in place as soon as was possible. How strange it is that he should now find it convenient to seek all sorts of excuses, including floods, to frustrate a process he initially said he wished to be completed in good time. In case Levy has forgotten, this is what he said on April 17, 2003 when he announced a 41-member Constitution Review Commission:

"I repeat what I have said so many times before that we aim to come up with a constitution which is people driven. Predetermining the mode of adopting the constitution either by me as President or by Cabinet is not only undemocratic but contradicts our aim that the constitution must be people-driven. We cannot delay this process any longer as it is of utmost importance that we should have a new constitution as soon as possible...The difficulty which I apprehend is that our current Constitution appears to me to allow no other method of altering the Constitution but through the national assembly and the process of changing this method seems somewhat impossible. We could all benefit by the wise counsel of those who consider that notwithstanding the voter apathy in the country it is still possible to amend the current constitution and provide for adoption of the new Constitution by constituent assembly."

There you are, Levy! Those are your own words, we have not manufactured any of them.

When Levy talks about the need for a people-driven constitution, this is what the Oasis Forum is saying and asking him to do. By making their own recommendations to Levy, the Oasis Forum were just responding to his emphasis on the need for the process to be driven by the people and not by self-serving politicians like himself. It is now very clear that Levy is contradicting himself when it comes to the issue of participation of the people in the constitution-making process.

On April 17, 2003, Levy told the nation: "We cannot delay this process any longer as it is of utmost importance and we should have a new constitution as soon as possible." So where is Levy's consistency? Can we surely say that Levy has been consistent on this matter? When we compare his statement of April 17, 2003 and his recent pronouncements on the constitution-making process, it is clear that Levy has changed his colours; he is now like a chameleon which changes its appearance to suit a particular environment. Levy has changed his language perhaps to suit his present mood.

We should not be blamed to conclude that Levy started the constitution making process for the sole purpose of gaining political mileage, since he was aware that it was one of the contentious electoral subjects prior to his election in 2001. It is now clear that this process was not started with a sincere motivation to fulfil the people's wishes. At least that is what Levy's actions suggest to us. We are saying this because we are failing to understand Levy's apprehension and apparent resistance to calls for an expedited constitution making process. Besides, most of the work has been done by the CRC.

Levy is the one who was asking for wise counsel on the way forward in terms of overcoming some of the obstacles ahead of the constitution-making process. Yet it is the same Levy who is now rejecting the kind of counsel that he needs if we are to make progress in this process. Instead, Levy has become the obstacle to the constitution-making process and perhaps we need the collective counsel of Zambians to find ways of overcoming him on this matter. We need to stop Levy's demagoguery.