Maravi

Opposition political parties

Opposition political parties
By Editor
Tuesday October 30, 2007 [03:00]

It is very sad that the country's independence party, UNIP, has died such a humiliating death. Whether UNIP's leaders or members like it or not, the party in its present state is as good as dead and the earlier they wake up to this rude reality the better. Today, UNIP is nothing but an empty shell, a shadow of its former self. It is actually an understatement to say that the party is sinking because it nose-dived into deep waters a long time ago and it seems no one in UNIP is willing to pick up the debris from the wreckage and patch up the broken pieces to resuscitate the party.

But UNIP's fate should not be a cause for celebration. What has happened to UNIP is very sad not only for the party but also for the nation. This is because for a country that is still trying to develop its multiparty democracy, the death of any major political party - especially the country's oldest political party - should be a worrying phenomenon.

Yes, political parties may become weak once in a while for several reasons or factors. However, the outright disappearance of a one-time ruling political party should concern us all because it is actually a danger to the growth of our multiparty democracy.

If anything, it is not right to allow political parties to disappear just like that and continue to call ourselves a multiparty political system. Since the reintroduction of multiparty democracy some 17 years ago, the only dominant political player has been the MMD and of course the ruling party has been riding very high on the advantage of incumbency besides the fact that the opposition has remained weak and incoherent.

As things are happening in the political arena, let us keep in mind that our political system is premised on multiparty democracy. But at the moment, we can safely say that we only moved from a one-party system under UNIP in 1991 to another de facto one-party system under the MMD, regardless of the fact that under the law we are operating a multiparty political system. Looking at what is happening in our political system, the idea of a multiparty democracy is laughable and we can show why.

Apart from the fact that the MMD has monopolised political power since the introduction of multiparty politics, another fact - and this has worked as an advantage for the MMD - is that the opposition has remained incoherent, unpredictable and uncoordinated. In fact, the majority of opposition political parties in Zambia largely operate on an ad hoc basis, where their visibility is limited only to election time.

And this can partly explain why during the last four general elections from 1991 to 2006, the results have produced different political parties as main opposition parties in the National Assembly. After the 1991 elections, UNIP emerged as the main opposition after losing power to the MMD.

During the 1996 elections, of course thanks to UNIP's boycott of the elections, there was a further fragmentation of the opposition where we ended up with parties such as the Zambia Democratic Congress and Agenda for Zambia being the main opposition parties, regardless of the fact that they had members of parliament few enough to be counted on five fingers.

After the 2001 elections, it was the UPND which emerged as the main opposition party in Parliament. As we speak today, the Patriotic Front is the leading opposition political party in Parliament. Now, looking at this confusion, it is easy to conclude that our multiparty democracy has really gone crazy and this has largely been aided by the poor state of our opposition political parties. And when we talk about the death of political parties, UNIP is not the only party in this situation.

Today, there are many other parties that exist only on paper and they operate as though there were no future to look forward to because their leaders are incapable of providing the necessary guidance or leadership as they have basically resigned themselves and their parties to fate.

As we have already stated, by law we are a multiparty democracy but if we are to lay facts the way they stand today, we just moved from a de jure one-party state into a de facto one-party state and there is no difference. But what our politicians must begin to realise is that multiparty democracy, being a political culture, needs a suitable atmosphere for its promotion, for it to grow.

The culture of democracy - tolerance of dissent, representation, consultation and consensus - needs to develop from the grassroots and not from the top leadership of political parties as it currently appears to be. In most cases, this has been the tragedy for our political parties because most of their leaders want to cling to the idea of being the godfathers; they are the alpha and omega and nothing can move as long as they are not personally involved.

Little wonder that leaders like Michael Sata can be asking party sympathisers to deposit money meant for party affairs in their personal accounts because they cannot distinguish between self and the parties which they lead. As far as they are concerned, Sata is PF and PF is Sata. Period.

For as long as this remains our way of doing politics, it should not be surprising if our political parties continue to head towards their political graveyards. Our political parties need to refocus and realise that the purpose of multiparty democracy is not to just increase numbers in the Registrar of Societies' books but to ensure that political legitimacy is promoted in the country and that they mobilise their members along clear principles for the sake of the development of this country.

Ultimately, we expect political parties to be embarking on programmes and policies that are relevant to the needs of the people today. Otherwise, as we are seeing now with UNIP, the parties will themselves become irrelevant to the people.

Labels: EDITORIAL, OPPOSITION, UNIP

posted by MrK @ 4:11 AM