Letters - 50%+1, Local Languages

50% plus 1 is a must
By Boyd Sitwala
Saturday May 03, 2008 [04:00]

I couldn’t help but wonder whether when some people are giving their opinions, they consider both the merits and demerits of what they are talking about. The sentiments by Pastor Charles Mwape that the 50 per cent plus one provision in the constitution would be a waste of the country's resources cannot go without comment. Pastor Mwape is insinuating that there would be violence and lawlessness if the 50 per cent plus one presidential majority threshold were enshrined in the Constitution.

Just to educate our misguided pastor on this topic, the violence that he purported as being the result of the 50 per cent plus one is purely as a result of incumbent presidents who refuse to leave office. The citizenry do not perpetuate such violence.

The 50 per cent plus one provision is meant to ensure that only a popular president is elected into office. The only people that oppose this in most countries are members of ruling parties, the reason being that incumbent presidents always have an upper hand in an election which ever way you look at it.

For example, the President appoints the chief justice loyal to him/her to be the returning officer for the presidential election.

In elections, whether political parties are funded or not, the ruling party always has an undue advantage of accessing resources to finance its campaigns.

Whichever way you look at it, the simple majority only favours the ruling party and can dangerously mean that it continues to rule even when it's clearly no longer popular. Our own President Mwanawasa won the 2001 elections through a simple majority of 27 per cent and this was because the opposition, which should have won, had their vote fragmented. As long as the simple majority rule continues, ruling parties will always carry the day.

The 50 per cent plus one provision would have filtered the candidates so that the worst candidates at the bottom of the list would have dropped out of the race and fewer candidates, say the best three or four would have gone for a re-run. Had that been the case, Mwanawasa would be in the opposition today and it is for that reason that he does not favour the idea.

I have no objection if Mwanawasa would have been elected by the majority. Even if Pastor Charles Mwape thinks Mwanawasa is a good leader, it does not mean we should ignore the 50 per cent plus one provision.

Let's not be docile and allow ourselves to be ruled under a mediocre constitution which is meant to just keep a group of people in power. The constitution is meant to safeguard the nation so that even future presidents should abide by it.

On the issue of wasting resources, the government already wastes resources on unbudgeted for and unnecessary by-elections which, except where the death of the MP is concerned, are usually caused by the ruling party enticing opposition MPs to denounce their parties to join the ruling party with a view to getting lucrative appointments. If the government sees it fit to waste resources like that, why should it be considered a waste of resources in ensure that a popular president is elected into office?

The 50 per cent plus one provision is the only way of ensuring that a popular president rules. Resources must always be found for such elections even if there needs to be a third re-run. Even Dr Kaunda, who used to contest elections without opponents, was only assured of continued presidency if he polled more than 50 per cent despite it not being provided for in the constitution.

Pastor Mwape should consult before misguiding his flock on this matter and put his personal feelings aside so that he can analyse both the merits and demerits of the 50 per cent plus one provision.


50% + 1 talk
By Godwin Yoram Mumba Kafue
Friday May 02, 2008 [04:00] Print Article Email Article
Following the outbursts from the opposition about the need to think hard by all stakeholders before including the 50 per cent plus one provision into our final constitution as the minimum requirement for any successful presidential candidate , I contend that perhaps our opposition leaders are too much in a hurry. they should revisit the proposal.

If you asked me, I would rather see the nation stick to the present scenario whereby the one with the highest number of votes, regardless of whether he has over or less than 50 per cent votes, becomes president.

A minority president is aware of the fact that he is the first among equals, realising that he has no monopoly of wisdom in his country. As such, he will spend much of his time trying to woe others of different opinion or persuasion to work with him.

He will consult first before implementing any of his decisions whereas the majority president tends to be arrogant and overbearing.

A majority president fears no one, not even parliament; He is totally oblivious of existence of checks and balances. The threshold of his so-called mandate of 50 per cent plus one goes to his head and begins to do things nonchalantly and, before you know it, he builds his own "tribe" alien to all the inalienable tribes in the country to the extent where all the resources are dished out only to his sycophants without qualification. Let us not build a monster president, or we will retard national development.

therefore, I am of the opinion that our emphasis should be on education for all. Let us pump more money in education so that the majority can understand why they are voting without succumbing to mob instinct. We have a problem in Africa because of lack of quality education. I have met a few people who have voted for someone just because he came from the same district as theirs regardless of the fact that the man had just come out of prison for fraud and was not long ago a patient at Chainama Mental Hospital; his understanding of how to invigorate the economy was totally below par.


This country needs a parliament of high integrity and very sharp ‘teeth’. It is wrong for Parliament to depend on the president instead of the president depending on parliament. This is why I am more comfortable with a minority president.



http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=41100

Local language use
By Tobias Hatembo, Lusaka.
Friday May 02, 2008 [04:00]

Allow me to give a word of caution after the comments made by Kaunda Wisdom in his letter titled ‘Local languages’ which appeared in the Sunday Post of April 27, 2008 in which he calls on fellow Zambians to be proud Africans and learn to use more of their local languages in comparison to our preference for the learning and use of English (or French).

I totally agree with Kaunda that as Zambians, we have reached a stage where we easily adopt anything exotic and abandon indigenous things. the purpose of language is to communicate, and doing away with our own languages amounts to plunder of our cultural identity.

However, under the current local language use preferences in Zambia, the adoption of English has not only been good for international recognition/communication. It has also played a very important role in harmonising the language situation in the country because local language use is dominated by only two languages, that is, Bemba and Nyanja.

The sentiments that the extensive use of the English may lead to the plunder of our cultural identity is itself an admission that a language is closely linked to a particular culture. If a language is predominantly used in a given society, the cultural values associated with it will tend to dominate that society and may lead to the ‘death’ of all other languages/cultures in that society.

Since our purpose is to preserve our cultural identity by preventing or reducing foreign language dominance, it is important that we recognise that English is not the only threat to our local languages and cultures. The dominance of Bemba and Nyanja is also a threat to other languages and cultures.

It is also important to recognise that ‘our linguistic identity’ is in fact a short cut for ‘our cultural identities’ because we are a multi-cultural society.

No one language in Zambia can represent our cultural identity and when we call for alertness against the plunder of our cultural identity by a foreign language, we need to ask ourselves whether our cultural identity is completely safe by guarding against the foreign language alone.

The destruction of one cultural identity through extensive use of another local language must equally be a source of concern as it has the same effect on our cultural identity as a foreign language.

My word of caution with respect to the above is that with the current dominant use of Bemba and Nyanja in Zambia, any guard against the extensive use, or against the demand in school for the exclusive use of the English language, is likely to protect only the Bemba and the Ngoni cultural identities (especially) if such a guard does not go with calls and actions for the balanced usage of all our seven main languages in the country. That situation would certainly not be good enough for us.