Maravi

NCC should not alienate, sideline anyone

NCC should not alienate, sideline anyone
By Editor
Tuesday October 16, 2007 [04:00]

Although some of Levy Mwanawasa's officials have given themselves the task of denying what their master said last week when he arrived from London, it is clear that the President's verbal antics have not gone according to his plan, they have not achieved the purpose of frightening Zambians and cowing them into silence.

In fact, the more Levy's lieutenants attempt to protect him, the more they are exposing their master to public ridicule and contempt over his clearly unwarranted threats to all those opposed to his National Constitutional Conference (NCC) Act.

And no amount of spin-doctoring or truth-twisting will cleanse Levy over his unnecessary statement at Lusaka International Airport last Tuesday.

And even if Levy employs someone of the calibre of Adolf Hilter's propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, the truth is that he said what he meant to say and it is clear that he meant what he said because, after all, he has not bothered to personally correct his fury-loaded statement.

In case there are doubting Thomases who may be swayed to believe people like Mike Mulongoti who claim that Levy's statement was exaggerated, here is what Levy said: "NCC is now law.

This law is now embodied, for those who did not know, in the NCC Act. I want those who are daring government to know... those who are still doubting that this is not the law and those who want to fight government and make governance impossible, that they are committing treason... I have come back a changed person.

Let me hear no more nonsense bordering on malice; they are going to be arrested and charged with treason and bail is not available to treason."

In our view, such a statement, coming from a head of state, is something we cannot gloss over and it does not need to be exaggerated for anyone to see what Levy was trying to do. By this statement, Levy is essentially telling Zambians to shut up over the NCC Act.

Unless Levy as a politician may not necessarily believe in whatever he says, we are convinced that he meant what he said and his message had a specific intention, that is, to frighten and scare Zambians over the NCC Act by invoking what has become his trump card - treason charges.

So instead of justifying the unjustifiable or defending the indefensible, Levy's ministers or indeed any other officials would do their master some good cleansing if they started to advise him over the fundamental issues of contention as far as the NCC Act is concerned.

And we do agree with Archbishop Telesphore Mpundu that dialogue is a two-way affair. Dialogue is not just about Levy and a few of his ministers telling Zambians what to do.

Dialogue is not about Levy directing Zambians to stop questioning the NCC Act. Dialogue is a two-way affair, meaning that much as Levy might want other stakeholders to listen to him over the NCC, he should also by the same token pay attention to what is being said to him.

The spirit of any dialogic exchange is that there should be reciprocity. Dialogue cannot just be about Levy dictating to Zambians what his wishes or desires are over the NCC without him paying attention to what Zambians' wishes or desires are over the same matter.

So, it is a requirement in dialogue that if Levy and his government want other stakeholders to change their position on the NCC, then he must also attend to the concerns being raised.

And this is why we have been emphasising the need for reasonable consensus on the NCC. Of course, as justice minister George Kunda put it the other week, it will be impossible to achieve a hundred per cent of consensus on this issue.

And our emphasis on consensus building is not that we can achieve a hundred per cent satisfaction of each side involved in the constitution-making process.

Having said that, we are still interested to see that there is reasonable agreement among stakeholders in this process. What saddens us sometimes is that our politicians, like many other proponents of the NCC Act in its present form, have chosen to hide under the guise of the over-recited theory of the majority rule.

It is not really important for those in government to start talking about how some civil society leaders are not elected while they are elected representatives because that is not what people are disputing.

At this point, nobody needs a lecture on the theory of the majority rule. What we are interested in, and we believe that is what is going to be more useful and helpful, is achieving some level of consensus so as to resolve most of the issues of concern that have been raised, especially those being raised by those who have been labelled to be in the minority.

We want to repeat what we said the other week; consensus in a democracy like ours is necessary not because the majority's views or opinions do not matter, but because it allows decision making to take into account a broad range of views and opinions, especially the views of the minority, and therefore provides an opportunity to arrive at less antagonistic or divisive decisions.

It is important that our political leaders start to find value in consensus building in whatever political processes they engage in because that is one of the best ways in which dissatisfaction among stakeholders can be minimised.

In an important national process like the constitution-making process, it is counterproductive to alienate any segment of our society, regardless of whether they are in the majority or in the minority.

If we accept the tyranny of the majority in our society, we will discover that most of the minority or disadvantaged groups in the nation will continue to be marginalised or alienated because those in the majority will be carrying the day anyway.

In our view, it will not be worthwhile to proceed with the NCC Act if the views and concerns of other stakeholders are sidelined, alienated or simply ignored just because those in government think the majority are in favour of the NCC Act in its present form.

Labels: NCC

posted by MrK @ 5:25 AM