Where does our future lie?
By Editor
Tuesday August 28, 2007 [04:00]

THERE is no future development without educated citizens. And we agree with Professor Clive Chirwa that our country's education system needs vision to give a chance to more people to go to school. There is no country in the world that has developed without a highly educated citizenry. And truly, Zambia needs a fresh start in its development efforts if we are to see a reversal of fortunes. The realities and prospects for the future, viewed as a whole, are so gloomy that they could generate pessimism and discouragement if we are not sure of our aims.

They are inevitably a bitter pill to swallow, but if we are to face up to the realities, we first have to become aware of them. We do not have, nor do we think anyone has, magic remedies for the difficult, complex and apparently insoluble problems our country faces today. History shows, however, that no problem has ever been solved until it has become a tangible reality of which everyone is aware.

Today, we are faced with so many serious and anguishing problems ever known to our people. But, no matter how enormous the difficulties, no matter how complex the task, there can be no room for pessimism.

This would be to renounce all hope and resign ourselves to the final defeat. We have no alternative but to struggle, trusting in the great moral and intellectual capacity of our people and in their instincts for self-preservation, if we wish to harbour any hope for survival.

Only with the tremendous effort and the moral and intellectual support of all can we face a future that objectively appears desperate and sombre.

There is need to listen to everyone without thinking we possess the absolute truth. We say this because when ideas are raised or generated and are subjected to analysis or criticism they are purified of their vices.

The observations made by Prof Chirwa on the way we are progressing socially and economically deserve to be listened to by our leaders; our leaders need to talk to this man because he has something to offer - whether they agree with him or not. They actually don't need to agree with him but still they need to listen to him attentively and without any prejudices.

As Prof Chirwa has correctly observed, "in every particular time, there is a revolution and this revolution has to be passed on to the younger generation". This is really correct because no revolution ever comes to an end and all revolutionaries have the duty to keep its ideas, principles and goals alive. We know that when one talks about revolution, what immediately comes to mind is ideology. But if there is anything that is an affront to human intelligence, it is the pretension that ideologies are on the way out.

For some, revolutionary ideas - patched up and on the defensive - have been condemned to extinction, and they talk your ear off about de-ideologisation. This is one of those words that should be thrown out, with the hope that not even a bad poet will include them in one of their works. Without making any great effort, we can imagine de-ideologisation as something amorphous, sticky and lacking content, first cousin to brimstone.

Some people want us to de-idelogise everything: economic discussions, political proposals and international relations. That is, they want to ideologise everything in another way. And, to that end, they invite us with supreme courtesy to pay fealty to the new order. We already know that de-ideologisation isn't the end of ideologies.

According to this argument, the Russians did wrong when they re-nationalised businesses. They profaned the principles of free enterprise and free trade, abused immaculate private property and stuck the state's nose into economic life. They also got their hands dirty when they promoted education that had an objective view of nature and society.

Looking at the cunning ideology of de-ideologisation it is clear that this fig leaf is vulnerable to the storm that will uncover the flaccid, sorry organs that cannot engender well-being and hope in the future. It is clear to us that exploitation, plunder and the like are more than worn-out phrases, that they still exist in the world, whether or not we are aware of them. And, even if you play sleight of hand with those concepts, they are still there to screw up anybody who is in the way when the time runs out.

We agree with almost everything Prof Chirwa said and his economic thinking - but not for use as a manual, as something infallible, because you shouldn't take any school of political thought or the thinking of any theoretician, economist or politician as something inflexible, as something dogmatic.

We should keep the thinking of the most illustrious economists or politicians and of the most outstanding revolutionaries from becoming dogma, for all thinking corresponds to a given moment, circumstances, amount of information and experience. Thus, things that Comrade KK may have viewed at one time as correct formulas for dealing with a given circumstance may not be applicable in other, different circumstances or in different times.

The ideas of Comrade KK are not dogmas - they are brilliant samples of talent and of political, social and revolutionary vision created at a certain time. They are always applicable as long as you don't consider them immutable dogma; to do so would be to take them out of the scientific, political, revolutionary context and make them a matter of religion.

The world is more ideologised now than ever, because they are trying to impose the ideology of capitalism, imperialism and neo-liberalism and wipe off the political map any ideology that doesn't coincide with it.

We are convinced that it's all a great farce, an enormous lie. Neo-liberalism isn't simply an economic doctrine where you are told to privatise everything including health and education; where you are told that the state or government has no business in business.

It is a political project that seeks to perpetuate the present economic order. They tell you that under neo-liberalism your government shouldn't subsidise industry and agriculture, yet they are the first ones to subsidise their industries and agriculture. And they say there shouldn't be any restrictions on free trade, yet they use free trade conditions to serve their own ends.

For how long are we going to wait before we start thinking about these problems? There is no future for us under this order and hence the need for a fresh start. But on what basis will this fresh start rest? It should rest on our own strength, and this means the fresh start on our own efforts. We agree with Prof Chirwa that it is ridiculous for us as a country to have a five-year development plan that is almost based on donor support. We should stand for self-reliance.

We should hope for foreign aid but should not be dependent on it; we should depend on our own efforts, on the creative power of all our people wherever they may be. It is not easy to do things for yourself; it is much easier to get things done for you by others. But there is no guarantee that others will develop our country for us, will improve the well-being of our people for us.

One who wants to do things for himself or herself cannot afford not to think about difficulties. But difficulties are facts; we must recognise as many facts as there are. We must recognise difficulties, analyse them and combat them.

There are no straight roads in the world; we must be prepared to follow a road that twists and turns and not try to get things cheaply. Anyone who sees only the bright side but not the difficulties will not achieve much. The wealth of society is created by the workers, peasants and working intellectuals. If they take their destiny in their own hands and take an active attitude in solving problems instead of evading them, there will be no difficulty in the world which they cannot overcome.

Our political leaders must take all this fully into account and be prepared to overcome all difficulties with an indomitable will and in a planned way. Of course, in times of difficulty we must not lose sight of our achievements, must see the bright future and must pluck our courage. At certain times the difficulties outweigh the favourable conditions but this should not be reason for doing stupid things, for getting into silly deals that are not beneficial to the country.

Through our efforts we can overcome the difficulties step by step and open up a favourable new situation; thus a difficult situation yields place to a favourable one. A good leader is one who is more eager to go where the difficulties are greater, where there are difficulties and problems to overcome and solve. He goes there to work and struggle to overcome these difficulties.

But to solve any problem, one must first understand it; misguided enthusiasm leads nowhere. It is well-known that when you do anything, unless you understand its actual circumstances, its nature and its relations to other things, you will not know the laws governing it, or know how to do it, or be able to do it well. For this reason we ask our leaders to listen to men like Prof Chirwa and improve their understanding of things, of issues.