Loyalty to principles

Loyalty to principles
By Editor
Tuesday June 10, 2008 [04:00]

Lusaka mayor Stephen Chilatu’s suspension is of no relevance to the reconciliation between Patriotic Front president Michael Sata and President Levy Mwanawasa. It’s difficult to understand why Dr Guy Scott is saying that lifting Chilatu’s suspension would strengthen the reconciliation between Sata and President Mwanawasa. Where is the link between these two issues?

As far as we know, Chilatu was suspended on alleged misconduct and abuse of office. The reconciliation between Sata and President Mwanawasa has nothing to do with corruption.

Probably if it were a reconciliation with those who are facing corruption charges, one would understand some connection between the two being talked about.

We need to be careful about the true meaning of reconciliation. We can easily be enticed to read reconciliation and fairness as meaning parity between justice and injustice. We know that injustice must be fought and justice must be sought.

It is not right, just and fair to let things slide for the sake of reconciliation and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate.

Or to touch on the matter slightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep in good terms. The result is that both the political party and the individual are harmed.

It is not right to see someone abusing public office and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but allow him to continue.

It is difficult to understand why Dr Scott and Sata are more eager to protect Chilatu when he is facing serious corruption charges from fellow councillors.

We do appreciate the principle of democratic centralism, of the need for lower ranks to obey orders from higher party officials. But there is need to be careful in the way orders are bandied around. Leaders who rely on authority to solve problems are bound to come to grief.

Of course within the ranks of our political parties, democracy should be correlative with centralism and freedom with discipline. They are the two opposites of a single entity, contradictory as well as united, and we should not one-sidedly emphasise one to the denial of the other.

Within our political parties, we cannot do without freedom, nor can we do without discipline; we cannot do without democracy, nor can we do without centralism.

This unity of democracy and centralism, of freedom and discipline should constitute our political parties’ democratic centralism. Under this system, members, cadres and leaders should enjoy extensive democracy and freedom, but at the same time, they should keep within the bounds of party discipline.

We must be ready at all times to stand up for the truth, because the truth is in the interest of the people.

Our political leaders, at all levels, must always go into the whys and wherefores of anything, use their own heads and carefully think over whether or not it corresponds to reality and is really well founded; on no account should they follow blindly and encourage wrongdoings.

We should always use our brains and think everything over carefully. In order to get rid of the blindness which exists to a serious extent in our political parties, we must encourage our politicians, at all levels, to think and learn to analyse issues instead of just being commanded around.

We must learn to look at problems all-sidedly, seeing the reverse as well as the obverse side of things. In given conditions, a bad thing can lead to good results and a bad thing to good results.

In approaching a problem, we should try to see the whole as well as the parts. A frog in a well says, “The sky is no bigger than the mouth of the well.” That is untrue, for the sky is not just the size of the mouth of the well. If it said, “A part of the sky is the size of the mouth of the well”, that would be true, for it tallies with the facts.

It doesn’t make sense for Patriotic Front leaders who expelled Susan Nakazwe from being mayor of Lusaka simply because she had disobeyed their order not to go to Lusaka International Airport to welcome Chinese President Hu Jintao to now seek reprieve for Chilatu who has been suspended for corruption.

Even the most basic reconciliation is not conducted this way. It is the result of honesty and truth, and not deceit or manipulation. If anything, it is Nakazwe who deserves reconciliation because she refused to put partisan interests above national ones; commitment to the nation took precedence over loyalty to the party.

The Patriotic Front leadership seems to be doing very badly where issues of principles are concerned. They seem to have been conducting politics based purely on expediency, on a desire to win public support or elections. As a result of this, today they are finding themselves in many U-turns and contradictions.

It is difficult to actually know what this political party really believes in or is about other than just winning elections. Today they are taking positions that appear to be principled but are they really taken on the basis of principle or it is just another move in the direction of political expediency?

Anyway, this is what happens when loyalty to principles is weak. This is what happens where there is betrayal of principles. This is the ending where loyalty and firmness of principles is not respected.

But there is no choice between being principled and unelectable; and electable and unprincipled.

Being mayor of the City of Lusaka is not purely an internal Patriotic Front issue. It is an issue that affects the entire leadership of the city regardless of which political party is in the majority as far as councillors are concerned.

Chilatu’s violation is not necessarily against the Patriotic Front but against the residents of Lusaka. And his friends did the right thing to suspend him. Dr Scott and Sata, who seem to be enjoying Machiavellian tactics in an unbridled way, must realise that a time comes when principles are considered, when principles matter. They have created a lot of internal contradictions within the party by being too commandist. Everything in the party seems to be a product of decrees, instead of democratic processes. Even the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under Stalin was not led in this way.

There was some form of intra-party democracy. There is need for important party policies to be discussed by all organs of the party. And there is also need for the top party leadership to learn to accept and respect decisions of lower party organs. Decisions can’t just flow in one direction – in the top to down direction.

This type of leadership has created a lot of confusion within the Patriotic Front. They are not strengthening the party but are weakening it. Sometimes there is need for the top leadership of the party to mull over things and listen to the feelings of the lower organs of the party.

We think the councillors are right over Chilatu and their decision should be respected by Dr Scott and Sata. Although they are the top most leaders of the party, it is not their party and as such should not try to dictate everything. They should learn to listen to other leaders of the party and work to create a collective leadership.