Votes and popularity

Votes and popularity
By Editor
Friday September 19, 2008 [04:00]

It is clear that the ruling MMD still has a lot of problems winning political support in Lusaka.

The bad or poor reception that MMD presidential candidate Rupiah Banda received yesterday when he visited Lusaka’s Kanyama Clinic and Lusaka City Market should be a source of worry not only for Rupiah but for the MMD in general. They should ask themselves what wrong they have done to the people of Lusaka.

Lusaka is not a small city, it is the capital of our country, and lack of support here should worry any candidate or political party. But the MMD’s problems in Lusaka did not start with Rupiah, they seem to be deep-rooted. The MMD performed very badly in Lusaka in the last election - both in the parliamentary and presidential elections.

It will take a lot of effort for the MMD to see a reversal of fortunes in Lusaka. And we are comforted by the attitude of MMD national secretary Katele Kalumba towards the party’s low popularity or appeal in Lusaka.

Reacting to the bad or poor reception received by Rupiah, Katele says it is because of this that they have undertaken a familiarisation tour to learn the problems people are facing in Lusaka.

There shouldn’t be any parts of our country declared no-go areas for any political party or its candidates. And where one is least popular, that is where one should visit more and have a more or less permanent presence.

It requires little intelligence – if a little is all one has - to realise that one cannot win a presidential election in this country if he doesn’t have a presence in all the parts of our country. And it is this that cost Michael Sata the 2006 presidential election. Sata, after sweeping Lusaka and the Copperbelt, failed to win the 2006 presidential elections because he had scored very little, if not nothing, in many parts of our country. But could one honestly say Sata was only popular in Lusaka and the Copperbelt and not in any other part of the country?

The truth is Sata lost the last election because his campaign did not in a meaningful way extend far much beyond these two areas. Sata succeeded in the urban areas where it’s generally not easy for most ruling political parties but lost most of the rural votes.

What this tells us is that popularity and winning votes are not synonymous. We say this because in democratic elections, the struggle is often not to determine which candidate commands the greatest public support, but who can most effectively motivate his or her supporters to convert their opinions into votes. And campaigning is the only effective way to convert that support into votes.

For this reason we urge those contesting the October 30 presidential election to pay a lot of attention to the planning and organisation of their campaigns. It is possible to be popular and lose an election. This is not to say being popular is not important. It is important to be popular but popularity alone cannot win one an election. There is need for a spirited campaign if one has to win an election.

As for the MMD, if it wants to see a reversal of fortunes in Lusaka and the Copperbelt, they will need to pay a lot of attention to the factors that have made them unpopular in these areas. They will need to follow what Katele is saying. This may help renew people’s faith in them. They will need to correct their bad image in Lusaka.

And the fact that they are seen to know how to make corrections will give them some prestige. It will give the MMD all the strength which organisations have when they know how to purify themselves of evils, when they know how to correct their errors, when they know how to overcome their difficulties. It is sometimes important to mull over things and consider the feelings of the people.

People living in Lusaka and the Copperbelt should be the best informed of our citizens, and unlike those in rural areas, are not easy to manipulate. It should therefore worry any political party that fails to win the trust of our urban dwellers.

There is need for them to have a permanent barometer of the feelings and judgements of the people. There is need to be consistent in their loyalty to ideas and principles, and not letting themselves become all puffed up by power, or tempted to engage in abuses of power, which is quite frequent among human beings. They should at all times study all the states of public opinion – favourable and unfavourable – and follow the state of public opinion with a microscope.

This presidential election raises questions about the importance of money. It’s clear that one without money will not be able to launch a meaningful nationwide campaign no matter what potential they may hold.

This may be an issue the National Constitutional Conference should try to address. It may be necessary, upon certain criteria, for the state to make some contribution to the finances of candidates in presidential elections. If not we may risk the elections being won only by those with deep pockets, the highest bidders.

This is not an easy issue to deal with and we don’t have any magic formula. But we believe a sensible approach to it can be found that may enable capable citizens who have no money to meaningfully contest presidential elections.

This may also help to stop or reduce the flow of dirty money into politics. Politicians funded by criminals are bound to be corrupt in their efforts to pay back the debt, the favours from criminals. It is for this reason that there should be strict adherence to the rules as set out in the electoral code.

Those who try to bribe the electorate with gifts of all sorts – sugar, mealie-meal and so on and so forth – as Rupiah did in Katete, shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. It will not be easy for someone who wins an election through corrupt methods, through bribery, to run a clean government.