Maravi

Sata's new approach to politics

Sata's new approach to politics
By Editor
Tuesday May 13, 2008 [04:00]

Michael Sata’s change of heart on President Levy Mwanawasa teaches us something very important about the nature of human beings. It is a useful reminder to all of us that all human beings, even the most seemingly cold-blooded, have a core of decency, of humility, of kindness, and that if their hearts are touched, they are capable of changing, of seeing things differently and more positively.

Our politicians are not necessarily bad people, cantankerous characters; this is something foisted upon them by their environment, the inhuman system under which they live and operate. They behave like that, like brutes because our system rewards them for that type of behaviour.

It is time all our politicians realised and fully accepted that ours is a multiparty political system in which both the ruling political party and the opposition should always play a role. And those in our ruling party and those in our opposition are all political leaders of our country and none of them is superior or inferior to the other. We know this is a difficult concept for some to accept.

But it is a necessary one because meaningful multiparty politics is impossible if this concept is not accepted. It means, in essence, that all sides in a multiparty political setup share a common commitment to its basic values. Political competitors in a multiparty political dispensation don't necessarily have to like each other, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge that each has an important and legitimate role to play. Moreover, the political ground rules must encourage tolerance and civility in public debate. Our politicians should exchange ideas and not punches or insults.

The only way to settle controversial issues among the people is the democratic method, the method of discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and education, and not the method of violence, of coercion or repression. Inevitably, all politicians will give expression to their own ideas or outlooks. Inevitably, they will stubbornly express themselves on political questions by every possible means.

We cannot expect them to do otherwise. We should not use the method of suppression and prevent them from expressing themselves, but should allow them to do so and at the same time argue with them and direct appropriate criticism at them. We must undoubtedly criticise wrong ideas of every description.

It certainly would not be right to refrain from criticism, to look on while wrong ideas spread unchecked and allow them to monopolise the field. Mistakes must be criticised and poisonous weeds fought wherever they crop up. However, such criticism should not be dogmatic, and the metaphysical method should not be used, but efforts should be made to apply the dialectical methods. What is needed is scientific analysis and convincing argument.

To criticise people's shortcomings is necessary but in doing so, we must truly take the stand of the people and speak out of whole-hearted eagerness to protect and educate them. To treat political opponents like enemies is to go over to the stand of the enemy, which is not acceptable in our political order. Contradiction and struggle are universal and absolute, but the methods of resolving contradictions, that is, the forms of struggle, differ according to the differences in the nature of the contradictions.

Some contradictions are characterised by open antagonism, others are not. In accordance with the concrete development of things, some contradictions which were non-antagonistic develop into antagonistic ones, while others which were originally antagonistic develop into non-antagonistic ones. In ordinary circumstances, contradictions among people are not antagonistic.

But if they are not handled properly, or if we relax our vigilance and lower our guard, antagonism may arise. We should rid our politics of all impotent thinking. We should create an environment in which all our politicians continue to exchange ideas and not punches or insults. None of them should ever be allowed to pretend to know what they don't know. We should not feel ashamed to ask and learn from our political opponents.

And we should listen carefully to the views of our political opponents or competitors. What our political opponents say may or may not be correct; after hearing it, we must analyse it. We must heed the correct views and act upon them. Listen also to the mistaken views from your political opponents; it is wrong not to listen to them at all. Such views, however, are not to be acted upon but to be criticised. Let's learn to ‘play the piano’. In playing the piano, all ten fingers are in motion; it won't do to have some fingers only and not others play. But if all ten fingers press down at once, there is no melody.

To produce good music, the ten fingers should move rhythmically and in coordination. We should keep a firm grasp on our central task and at the same time, around the central task, we should unfold the work in other areas. At present, we have to take care of many fields; we must look after the work in all the areas and not give all our attention to a few problems, to the exclusion of others. Wherever there is a problem, we must put our finger on it, and this is a method we must master. Some play the piano well and some badly, and there is a great difference in the melodies they produce. All our politicians must learn to ‘play the piano’ well. Our politicians must ‘grasp firmly’ their main tasks.

One can get a grip on something only when it is grasped firmly, without the slightest slackening. Not to grasp firmly is not to grasp at all. Naturally, one cannot get a grip on something with an open hand. When the hand is clenched as if grasping something but is not clenched tightly, there is still no grip. Some of our politicians do grasp the main tasks, but their grasp is not firm and so they cannot make a success of their work. It will not do to have no grasp at all, nor will it do if the grasp is not firm. There is need for our politicians to pay a lot of attention to uniting and working with those who differ with them.

This should be borne in mind in all they do. We have come together from every corner of our country and should be good at uniting in our work not only with those who hold the same views as we do but also with those who hold different views. We urge all our politicians to guard against arrogance. For anyone in a leadership position, this is a matter of principle and an important condition for maintaining unity.

Even those who have made no serious mistakes and have achieved great success in their work should not be arrogant. Many things may become baggage, may become encumbrances, if we cling to them blindly and uncritically. Having made mistakes, you may feel that, come what may, you are saddled with them and so become dispirited; if you have not made mistakes, you may feel that you are free from error and so become conceited.

Lack of achievement may breed pessimism and depression, while achievement may breed pride and arrogance. Winning or losing an election may be a good example of this. One with a short record of struggle may shirk responsibility on this account, while a veteran may become opinionated because of his long record of struggle.

All such things become encumbrances or baggage if there is no critical awareness. We must, therefore, endeavour to always eradicate faults. Hard work is like a load placed before us, challenging us to shoulder it. Some loads are light, others heavy. Some people prefer the light to the heavy; they pick the light and shove the heavy onto others. That is not a good attitude. Some are different, they leave ease and comfort to others and take the heavy loads themselves; they are the first to bear the hardships, the last to enjoy comfort.

They are good people. We should all learn from their selfless spirit. There are also people who are irresponsible in their work, preferring the light to the heavy, shoving the heavy loads onto others and choosing the easy ones for themselves. At every turn they think of themselves before others. When they make some small contribution, they swell with pride and brag about it for fear that others will not know. They feel no warmth towards others but are cold, indifferent and apathetic.

If our approach to politics is a selfless one, we will have no difficulties at all respecting and working with our political opponents for the collective good of all our people. Some of the violent confrontations we are witnessing among our politicians are as a result of vanity, greed, selfishness and lack of respect for the people.

For these reasons, the position taken by Sata should be supported by all and welcomed and respected by those in government. This is the only way our multiparty political dispensation can be of value to our people.

This is the only way we can achieve unity in diversity and share a common commitment to the development of our country. Besides, in a multiparty democracy, those in government need the cooperation of those in opposition if they are to deliver the services required by our people in an efficient, effective and orderly manner.

As we have stated before, the opposition are expected to be loyal not to the specific policies of those in government but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself. This is because the opposition is also part of the state. If the men and women in our political parties are really patriots, their preoccupation should be to see our country succeed in all areas of human endeavour regardless of who is in government. And those in the opposition should not try to win the next elections on the back of national failure. This is why Sata’s new approach to politics deserves the support of all.

Labels: MWANAWASA, POLITICS, SATA

posted by MrK @ 10:56 AM