What's this reconciliation really about?

What's this reconciliation really about?
By Editor
Sunday June 22, 2008 [04:00]

IT is increasingly becoming difficult to understand the true meaning of all these political reconciliations, or attempts of them, that we are witnessing in the country. It seems there is much more to the political reconciliation between opposition Patriotic Front leader Michael Sata and President Levy Mwanawasa.

Last week, defence minister George Mpombo told the nation that the government and the ruling MMD would no longer push for an upper limit on the age of a presidential candidate following President Mwanawasa's reconciliation with Sata. Mpombo clearly demonstrated that this whole constitutional proposal on the age limit was aimed at Sata. But surely, is this the way to make laws?

Is this the way serious national matters are decided? Can such serious constitutional matters be subjected to simple political reconciliation between Sata and President Mwanawasa? If this is what political reconciliation means, then the nation needs to think twice about it.

We say this because democracy is a much more important human ideal to strive for than these ill-conceived political reconciliations. Moreover, political reconciliation is not a human ideal, it is a matter of political expedience in the struggle for political power. To suggest that political reconciliation is more important than democracy is tantamount to making a historical conversion that alters the course and purpose of the 1990/91 constitutional changes to re-introduce multiparty politics in Zambia.

What is surprising is that when Mpombo first made this statement - and that was before Sata's reconciliation with the President - there was no reaction from President Mwanawasa. He never disagreed with Mpombo or cautioned him against making such statements. The whole thing looked like it was a government position. It is surprising that after their reconciliation with Sata, President Mwanawasa all of a sudden has found where principles on this issue were hidden and he is now invoking them!

Clearly, some of the political reconciliations being bundled around are really without inherent virtues. UPND president Hakainde Hichilema is also seeking some one form or another of political reconciliation with ULP president Sakwiba Sikota so that both come under one political party.

The question is, for what? There is need for justification.
Political reconciliation should be seen against the background of the quest for democracy, of strengthening our multiparty democracy. Without this background, it becomes misleading to suggest that there is something inherently sacrosanct about political reconciliation in this country.
Political reconciliation must be a dialectical result of competing political parties under common broad-based constitutional rules.

And reconciliation should be the fruit of honesty, truth and solidarity. To arrive at true and meaningful political reconciliation, the primary requisite is eradication of the cause of dissension between people or political parties. Reconciliation, which is to seek and accept forgiveness, cannot remain just mere words; it has to be visible in concrete actions.

We do appreciate the fact that there is a lot of hatred, anger and a spirit of vengeance in our politics today necessitating reconciliations. But why should this be so?

Hatred and vengeance should find no place in an honest politician's heart. You can fight with all the determination and strength of will in the world, but you shouldn't do it out of hate, vengeance.

That can't be avoided except on the basis of principles, on the basis of ideas, on the basis of ethics. It's the only way.

We should learn to believe in the human being, in his ability to acquire ethics, a conscience; in his ability to make great sacrifices. And speaking for ourselves, we can in all honesty say our work has never been driven by hatred or vengeance towards any individual or organisation.

We have fought many battles but it has mainly been against certain practices or vices and in the course of doing so sometimes we have had to directly fight individuals behind such practices or vices. not out of hatred, but purely out of principle. And this is what those who criticise us or even condemn us should take into account.

What we would say to those who doubt, or who condemn us because they have certain ideas, is that they should ponder the ability of this small newspaper to resist, for almost 17 years, the constant attacks of our country's most powerful politicians, businessmen and in some cases outright criminals. Again, that can't be done except on the basis of principles, on the basis of ideas, on the basis of ethics.

Throughout history, one sees men die for honour, values that they can hold dear. Somebody inculcated those values in them. We say, inculcate the best values from the human point of view, from the point of view of justice, fraternity.

We consider ourselves fortunate to have been aware that hatred and prejudice are not political weapons. There are not political weapons and, in addition, we have the experience to know that principles are the best possible political weapons.

We really don't understand that hate. We can understand hating someone for ideological reasons, out of frustration with the failure of one's attacks on him, of frustration with the ability of a small entity to resist forces as powerful as those that have tried to destroy us, the propaganda that stops at nothing. And as they failed to destroy us, their frustration and vitriol grew.

ignorance is the root of many ills. Knowledge must be the fundamental ally of people who aspire, despite all their tragedies and problems, to become truly emancipated, to build a better world.