Collective wisdom pays

Collective wisdom pays
By Editor
Thursday October 11, 2007 [04:00]

Politics, like wisdom, is like a baobab tree which no single individual can embrace. And so even those who are not involved in politics per se are usually affected by the way politicians run politics. Since politics touch or affect almost all citizens in a given society, it is important that everyone pays attention to the way politicians behave or conduct business. That is why we agree with Union Network International secretary general Fackson Shamenda’s observation that participation in politics is not for politicians alone but the wider society.

It is true that many times government leaders have shifted their views on the participation of the labour movement, the Church and civil society in matters affecting the nation. In other words, government leaders or politicians in general have identified themselves as the only key players in politics. Anybody else is and should be a spectator.

That is why these politicians in most cases exhibit intolerable arrogance in the running of the country’s affairs. They feel as though they were running a personal company where they have full control and say.

They forget that they have been entrusted to run the country’s affairs by the citizens whom they usually taunt for being vigilant observers on how the country is being managed. That is why President Levy Mwanawasa and his colleagues in government want to impose things upon our people. Levy even says ‘I want to give or leave Zambians with a constitution that will stand the test of time’.

But when we look back into history, we see that various stakeholders have played various roles in the emancipation and development of the country. This country’s independence was not realised by politicians exclusively.

Men and women, both and young old from different walks of life played different roles that saw the defeat of those colonialists from Britain.

In 1991 when Zambians fought to return to multiparty politics, we saw the Church, trade unions and other civil society organisations come together for a common purpose.

And victory was recorded with efforts of all these organisations and citizens in general put together.

But as soon as Frederick Chiluba and his colleagues in the MMD took positions in government, they forgot the various roles that the Church, trade unions and civil society in general played in bringing to an end Dr Kenneth Kaunda’s regime.

Each time the Church or civil society wanted to air their views on the governance of the country, they were asked to shut up because politics were for the politicians. The church leaders were even challenged to join politics, if they wanted to engage politicians, instead of using the pulpit to criticise politicians.

This was said ignoring the fact that it was the Church’s intervention at the Cathedral that forced Dr Kaunda to amend the Constitution and reintroduce multiparty politics in the country. This is the development that even compelled Dr Kaunda to cut short his term of office and called for elections that saw his ‘eviction’ from State House.

In 2001, Chiluba attempted to manipulate the Constitution in a bid to go for a third term in office. Again, civil society in general, working together with the Church, joined hands to form the Oasis Forum and worked with trade unions, among others, to ensure that Chiluba’s bid was frustrated.

It is these efforts that saw Levy become President of our country. But the moment Levy formed government together with some people who heavily participated in the activities of the Oasis Forum during the third term debate, the Oasis Forum, the Church and trade unions became enemies of his government by offering the necessary checks and balances.

They have been called all sorts of names for trying to play the same role that they played in 2001 in fighting against constitution manipulation and bad governance in general.

Clearly, when it suits the people in government, the Church and other civil society organisations, including non-governmental organisations, are stakeholders in the development of the country. And when the government wants to pursue its narrow and selfish agenda, the Church and civil society organisations are advised to stick to their mandates and are described with all sorts of mean-spirited names.

Politicians should be reminded that they require checks and balances all the time. Leaving them to do things as they please will retard national development because these men and women in politics will occupy themselves with pursuing their own interests as opposed to national interests.

That is why they are having difficulties marshalling the necessary consensus in the constitution-making process, because they want to impose their will on the people.

But our politicians will do well to look at the Church and civil society in general as partners in development and not enemies who are bent on fighting them out of offices. Of course, disagreements and differences will always be there.

However, when the Church or civil society differs with the government on an issue or vice-versa, this should not be taken that one party wants to destroy the other. Differences are inevitable everywhere. People who live or work together do quarrel at times, just like hoes that dig together often knock each other.

What we are trying to say is that when differences occur among these interest groups, it is always good to seek solutions as opposed to widening the distance between or among these groups. Of course, there will always be people who do not mean well in these organisations.

But these bad eggs in government on one hand and the Church and civil society on the other should not be allowed to destroy the common good. This will be easy to achieve when those in authority remind themselves that governing a country is a business for everyone and that they are in those positions merely to represent the rest of the citizens who cannot all be accommodated in those positions.

Therefore, it is fallacy to say that participation in politics or governance of the country is a preserve of politicians. It is in this vein that we encourage our civil society, trade unions, non-governmental organisations together with the Church never to give up in keeping the government accountable for its deeds.

We say this because even the many inclusions in the National Constitutional Conference (NCC) Act were as a result of the pressure and suggestions coming from these organisations or stakeholders. If sufficient pressure had not been mounted, those changes would not have been made to the NCC Act.

There is wisdom in working together as a country because this country knows no single genius as we said before. We need collective wisdom and collective genius if this country is to develop.