There's strength in unity

There's strength in unity
By Editor
Sunday August 17, 2008 [04:00]

It is said that there is strength in unity. And Hakainde Hichilema is right when he says that: “If we have to serve the people, we need to be united.” But as we have always pointed out, unity is not a principle, it is an expediency in the quest for power. However, if the decision by Michael Sata and Hakainde to co-operate, to work together is properly managed, it will definitely propel them collectively to a better performance in their campaigns and elections than they would achieve all by themselves.

Those who are ready to join hands can overcome the greatest challenges.

But no meaningful co-operation can be achieved on the shifting sands of evasions, illusions and opportunism.

And the mark of great leaders is the ability to understand the context in which they are operating and act accordingly.

Experience has shown that a fragmented opposition, an opposition divided into hostile political parties loses its militancy. Protracted fights among opposition political parties inevitably result in them concentrating on weakening each other and collectively lowering their capacity in the political contest with the ruling party.

They also individually and collectively become distracted from their day-to-day political struggles and campaigns against the ruling party. And consequently, they lose their influence among the masses.

We hope that this co-operation between Sata and Hakainde will mean that they will not oppose or criticise each other when things are wrong. Criticising each other in a multi-party political system does not mean personal enmity.

In a multi-party system, opponents are not enemies, they are mere competitors in a competition to serve.

Truly, political competitors in a multi-party political system don’t necessarily have to like each other, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge that each has a legitimate and important role to play.

They must also agree to co-operate in solving common problems of the society. Those in the opposition should co-operate among themselves with the knowledge that their role is essential – and needs to be strengthened – in any democracy worth the name.

Meaningful co-operation among our opposition political parties should be the fruit of honesty, truth and solidarity and it must be actualised by people thirsting after an ever more perfect reign of justice. To make intra-opposition co-operation meaningful, all are called to maturity, tolerance and responsibility.

And for such co-operation to be meaningful, it is important to maintain and strengthen democratic principles and party structures; it shouldn’t rely totally on the goodwill of two individuals who may not have even properly consulted and involved their parties.

And we hope that this co-operation between Sata and Hakainde does not lead to political insulation and complacency. Therefore, it must be looked at in the context of advancing democracy, strengthening checks and balances in the governance of our country.

Democracy is a much more important human ideal to strive for than political co-operation between two leading opposition politicians of the moment.

Unity is not a human ideal, it is a matter of political expedience in the struggle for political power. Co-operation must never be seen to be more important than democracy because doing so will be tantamount to making a historical conversion that alters the cause and purpose of our multi-party democracy.

Co-operation or accommodation between two leading opposition politicians of the moment is a political phenomenon without inherent virtues.

The substantive meaning of the co-operation Sata and Hakainde should be seen against the background of the quest for democracy. Without this context, it becomes misleading to suggest that there is something inherently sacrosanct about this co-operation between Sata and Hakainde.

Political co-operation and accommodation must be a dialectical result of their competition under common broad-based democratic constitutional rules.

We say this because the political and other interests of the Zambian people are too complex and by far larger than the similar and combined interests of Sata and Hakainde to form the next government or enter State House.

Therefore, the purpose of their co-operation should be underpinned by uplifting the most trodden sections of our population and all-round transformation of our society. But there is always a danger of being easily enticed to read co-operation as meaning no criticism against each other.

If criticism is justified, it must be made. Co-operation that takes away an individual’s right to make just and honest criticism doesn’t seem to be right because it is not in the interest of our people to do so.

Meaningful co-operation also requires that all parties respect each other. If this is the case, then the question of Sata trying to groom Hakainde seems to be a patronising one. Sata has got his own party, with his own leadership and members who need to be groomed. How can he go about claiming to be grooming a leader of another political party? Unless there is a merger of their political parties, this doesn’t seem feasible and it’s merely empty words from Sata. Co-operation should not remain just mere words; it has to be visible in concrete actions.

The coming together of opposition political parties, together with civil society, to challenge Cabinet’s decision to increase the salaries of politicians if implemented well will save as a warning to those in government that gone are the days when public resources were shared without opposition.

We would all like our politicians to earn good salaries. But this should be in line with the general performance of our economy and other things happening in the country.

Looked at in this way, it’s clear that these increased salaries were ill-conceived and ill-timed. And those in government should blame themselves for the embarrassing opposition they are facing over this issue.

It will be impossible for them to marshal public support in their favour. They will give themselves this salary increment at the back of serious national opposition. It may seem too late for them to withdraw the bill. But it will be fatal for Acting President Rupiah Banda to sign the bill.

The best advice we can give them is that they should mull over things and consider the feelings of the people. This will be the wrong time for them to face nation-wide strikes and campaigns against their increased salaries. This is the wrong time for them to be made to appear so greedy and selfish. Timing is important in everything.