HH’s invitation to Saki
HH’s invitation to SakiBy Editor
Thursday June 19, 2008 [04:00]
Hakainde Hichilema’s invitation to Sakwiba Sikota to rejoin the UPND is very interesting and needs to be analysed. It needs to be analysed because over the last eight years or so, UPND has emerged as an important opposition party. Opposition politics in any country is difficult. It is even more difficult in a developing democracy.
Those who want to be politicians should bear in mind that it is not always that they will find themselves serving on a ruling party ticket. Today’s ruling party may be tomorrow’s opposition. If one wants to serve as a politician, they must be very clear why they want to do so. They need to articulate for themselves a principled basis upon which they stand.
We say this because we have noticed that in our country and other places, there are quite a lot of people who enter politics with very wrong motives. They go into it believing that they are going to make a name and become instant heroes. This is true for some people. But it is very rare. It is risky to go into politics with this kind of expectation.
What happens if you don’t achieve instant celebrity and popularity? You will end up very frustrated and disillusioned. Politics in a poor country like ours should be about service, sacrificial service. If you are not prepared to sacrifice, don’t go into it.
We know a lot of politicians who joined politics because they wanted to become presidents and others MPs. Some of these people don’t have any history or experience in public service. They come in with the sole intention of becoming this or that. This lack of principle has denied the Zambian people meaningful representation from those who claim to be their public servants.
There is an attitude amongst our politicians that unless they win the presidency, there is nothing to fight for. Indeed, we have seen political parties winning the popular vote in huge parts of our country but having no impact on the ground. Why? It is because they think that the only time they can serve the people is when they win the presidency. By this kind of thinking, otherwise powerful opposition parties have rendered themselves ineffective and of no consequence in the politics of our country.
The political culture in our country is a winner-takes-all culture, a mentality which is not accommodating to divergent views. The problem will be big but not so big if only the ruling party thought like this. But unfortunately, even the opposition behaves the same way. We need to develop a culture of give and take. Politics is about balancing different interests.
Against this background, it is good that Hichilema is inviting Sikota back to UPND. But for what reason? Why should Sikota go back to the UPND?
Political union must be about principles. In other words, people who are serious about serving the country should agree on a basic minimum of principles on which they are going to co-operate. If Sikota was to go back to UPND, what are those basic minimum principles going to be?
To answer this question, we must look at what led to them parting company in the first place. There were allegations of electoral malpractice at the UPND convention and blatant sentiments of tribalism within the UPND. These were unfortunate and very serious anomalies that require deep reflection and honest efforts to address.
This is where Hichilema’s offer appears strange and unfortunate. If he was serious about unity in the opposition, common decency and humility suggests that he could have gone about this in a different way. To stand on a platform and invite Sikota back to the UPND in the public fashion that Hichilema did is condescending and a failure to understand politics.
Who would ever take Sikota seriously if upon such an invitation, he came out and said: “I am going back to the UPND”. If Sikota was prepared to do this, why did he leave in the first place? Hichilema, if he is serious about unity, needs to change his approach. There is a way in which things are done. The approach Hichilema has adopted is wrong.
He is adopting, maybe not intentionally, a triumphant posture that seeks to humiliate Sikota. If he is serious about working with others, he needs to take a humble approach and use his business acumen to do political ‘deals’ quietly. You can’t settle the kind of rift that met in UPND after the passing of Anderson Mazoka by mere posturing. More will need to be done.
If the UPND has to regain its relevance, they need to understand that the presidency is just one of the elements in a complex mesh of political levers.
They need to learn to use what they have more effectively and develop a culture of tolerance. UPND has almost exclusively controlled the Southern Province for the last eight years. What have they done to utilise their dominance in that area to deliver service to the people?
Of course, they will say : “ we don’t control the resources, the central government does”. But what have they done to engage the government in negotiated settlements for the benefit of the people they represent?
They need to acquire humility that enables them to strike ‘deals’ and allows them to function as an opposition party. The way Hichilema is dealing with Sikota demonstrates a clear lack of this understanding.
A failure to use their strengths, blind-sighted by a single-minded interest in the presidency should not be encouraged. Why else would somebody kick off 2011 campaigns in 2008? When is he going to deliver for his constituency? Unless of course he has decided that he has no work until he becomes president.
We do not think the offer to Sikota is sincere. It is all part of the early onset of the 2011 campaign. If Hichilema is serious about working with those who left UPND, he should address their concerns.
Labels: HAKAINDE HICHILEMA, SAKWIBA SIKOTA
posted by MrK @ 3:34 AM
1 Comments:
The post is doing a good job in informing the public about political scenerio in our small country. I have been following the political stories in the post for sometime now and this time around I have mixed feelings about the Post's position in our politics. It seems to me that the Post has now become more of a medium of hatred than that of solutions and unity. Biasness in political reporting can never bring us peace but adds fire and personal hatred among political players. I understand that even in the "highest land" (in the US) the media has favourite candidates which is unfortunate because the media is supposed to be a pioneer of democracy. Principles of democracy can only be withheld in an event that the political "playfield' is level for all political players. The media is a political playfield and a voice for the voiceless, it must be informative and critical but without intention to damage.
Keep up with the job of representing the people.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home