Political chameleons
Political chameleonsBy Editor
Saturday August 23, 2008 [04:00]
President Levy Mwanawasa fought a noble battle and lived his life in pursuit of a better life for all of us. The democracy in which we will burry him and honour him on September 3 is the sweet fruit of his life of honesty, of struggle against vices and indeed of sacrifice.
We have been listening to many people comment on the passing of Levy. Most of our people are truly and genuinely grieved. A dark cloud of sadness has descended over our land. This seems to have caused many people to stop and think.
It seems crises generate ideas. And Levy’s death, a big crisis for our country and our people, is generating ideas.
Most of our people seem to be thinking very clearly. They know what they don’t want and more importantly, they know what they want.
Anybody following the proceedings of national mourning on any medium today has to agree that one theme has crystallised. Our people are demanding continuity of Levy’s legacy.
They don’t want the gains and benefits that have been achieved during Levy’s presidency to go with him, to be reversed.
This is not a wrong aspiration, it is a correct one. Our people have every right to expect the best from their government. They have the right to expect honesty and integrity from their government.
These two qualities have consistently come out as we have continued to mourn Levy. As the discussion starts on who should succeed Levy, a question needs to be asked: what is Levy’s legacy? And who amongst his colleagues and political opponents is best placed to carry forward that legacy?
This is a general question that the ordinary person who is demanding continuity should ask. But those who were close to Levy, those who worked with him daily and respect and value his leadership, have another question to answer.
If they respected his leadership and valued his aspirations, it is not wrong for them to ask what Levy’s wish was.
We cannot for a minute suggest that Levy was infallible or his wishes and aspirations the best. But those who worked with him have a duty, a moral obligation to examine his choice. If they are going to discard his wishes, they have to do so very carefully.
It is clear that Levy had very clear thoughts about leadership. He was also clear on who should and who should not succeed him. He also had a very clear preference. This is part of his legacy.
Those who are talking about continuity and respecting Levy’s legacy cannot be honest about this endeavour and yet ignore his wishes. Dipak Patel has raised an interesting issue which, in the context of intra-party politics, should not be dismissed.
If Levy expressed a clear wish and the people would want to depart from it, they need to be clear why. They also need to address the question of why Levy expressed that preference in the first place. It will not do, to use Levy’s language, to ignore Levy and his guidance, even before he is buried, out of political opportunism.
If Levy said no to certain practices and consequently ruled out certain leaders, we will have every reason to be worried if people start choosing leaders who will help them do things that Levy would not have allowed.
This would be nothing less than criminal conspiracy to defraud our people of their achievements and turn us back to the dark days of plunder, abuse of office and violation of human rights as was the case under Frederick Chiluba.
Levy had decided and chosen to run a government of laws and not men, as he used to say. He had chosen to fight corruption even within his own government; something which did not always make him popular given the fact that our politics, since the Chiluba days, have been dominated by corruption, greed and vanity.
Levy was prepared to risk his very political survival to fight corruption. His government took on fights with political heavyweights to rid our country of corruption, even when it could have made him lose an election. We saw how in 2006 – not too long ago – the plunderers regrouped and went for Levy.
They ratcheted the political temperature and pinned Levy on the ropes. He was fighting for his political survival and it would have been very easy for him to compromise with the plunderers. But he chose to fight on and not to compromise with them in any way.
It cannot be disputed that the last presidential and parliamentary elections were probably the best elections that this country has ever held.
The contest was high and difficult. The temptation for the sitting government to manipulate things was there. But Levy chose the honest path. Our police seemed to enjoy a lot of freedom in facilitating the campaign activities of all the players.
The opposition were as free as the ruling party to hold their campaign meetings. Levy was determined to win or lose that election in a clean way. This is the legacy that he has left – a legacy of honesty, integrity, sincerity and true patriotism. Once again, politically and morally, Levy made Zambians feel proud to be Zambians.
On the economic front, Levy was not different. He did not hide his decisions. Even when we did not agree with him, we had to respect his convictions and determination to achieve certain economic milestones. He was ready to take politically risky economic decisions when he believed they would benefit our people.
It is not too long ago that Levy announced increased taxation in the mining companies. This was a very difficult decision, one that required a lot of courage and conviction. But he did it. There are some politicians in this country today who change their positions on important issues every day for political expedience, to feather their nests.
One day, they will say that the mines are not taxed enough and the next, they will say ‘why are you taxing the mines so much?’
In the morning, they will join a protest, saying ‘don’t sell Zanaco and in the evening they will be saying ‘it’s ok’. If Zambia is going to go forward, we still need principled leadership, not political chameleons who stand for nothing but their aspiration to get to State House.
They will try to manipulate everything and everyone to try and get into power.
Political chameleons come in two major forms.
The first is the one we have just described. The politician who keeps changing his position to suit his audience – a political demagogue, an opportunist. The other type is the one who has no position.
He never takes a clear position on anything. He quietly blends with the environment to cheat, manipulate and deceive the people around him into believing he is one of them. He too is still an opportunist.
He is just as harmful as the first but is capable of making people believe he is harmless. But we know that such manipulators, such opportunists have never deserved anybody’s respect or been successful anywhere.
Manipulators are like little sailboards that go with the wind and the waves. Manipulation is synonymous with opportunism.
Manipulation doesn’t have substance; it doesn’t have roots. We think everything – respect, relationships, serious analysis, and understanding – is only possible among people who are honest with themselves and others.
As we look at Levy’s legacy and as those concerned decide who is going to carry it forward, one thing is clear: political chameleons will not carry forward Levy’s vision. Only principled leadership will.
Labels: MWANAWASA
posted by MrK @ 4:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home