Maravi

Let critical Muteteka speak

Let critical Muteteka speak
Written by Editor

It seems one of our biggest hurdles to progress, apart from the over-quoted colonial legacy and international capitalist conspiracy, is that we are over-governed by petty-minded politicians.

In this case, they are not content with just running the affairs of the state and providing our people with the necessities of life, but they would also want to run the very lives and control the thinking of every citizen they govern.

And one of the most effective ways by which they achieve this state of affairs is to blackmail and suppress all forms of criticism and information designed to expose the fallacy of their policies and practices, their inefficiencies and ineptitude, and indeed the crimes of their league. Thus before people realise, their vote spawns one tyrant after another, prying on the original commitment of the masses.

All the leaders become demigods of wrath. All critics inside and outside the ruling party and its government must be crushed. To agree with everything they say and do is divine, but to disagree is treason.

In due course, the phrases “constructive criticism” and “destructive criticism” are coined in order to place potential opponents or “enemies” in some useful categories to reward the loyalists and punish the “malcontents”. The citizen must belong to them or be condemned. The sponsors of this dialectic are not ashamed to attribute enmity where it may not exist.

They thrive on the explosive emotions which this dialectic is likely to generate among the unsuspecting poor citizens of low literacy. In fact, no regard is ever had for the patriotism of critics, unless they happen to die. They can't differentiate between a critic and a traitor. Where there is a critic, they see a traitor. In the end, we seem to be stuck with tyrannical rulers and uncritical people.

But what do the phrases “constructive criticism” and “destructive criticism” mean anyway? A keen look at those who use these phrases will invariably show that they get intensely paranoid when they hear criticism. They are so weakly constituted that they fear that if they are criticised, they will lose their manliness, their constituencies and ultimately, their power.

“Constructive criticism” means flattery, agreement and praise of the President and those around him. Criticism per se is non-existent. Anything else is destructive. Criticism is an expression of hate, not pure disagreement.

It seems our politicians are incapable of being criticised without feeling rancoured about it. In fact, all the time the impression is given that to criticise is to condemn or curse in the biblical fashion.

It is quite true that acceptance of criticism implies the highest respect for the human ideal, and that its denial suggests a conscious or unconscious lack of humanity on our part. Intolerance of criticism must surely rank as one of the worst forms of immorality in human affairs.

What we are striving to say is that our politicians should take pride in their critics. We say this because a society without critics is a human hell where leaders indulge in an anarchical instinct without moral compassion.

We shouldn't forget that even in our traditional past, chiefs or kings used to be criticised; they were the subject of satirical orations, through poetry and ribaldry. All our chiefs, including the most ruthless ones, used to be criticised openly. Now, try and criticise the President of this country and see what happens to you in the newspapers, on radio and television.

And yet we are so fond of justifying our leadership on our ancestral traditions! Yet we don't seem to know the attitudes and practices of our ancestors. So we are really stuck in a culture of zealous worship of political leaders, of whoever is President, a culture which would look primitive in the eyes of our ancestors. We are building a reputation for intolerance that will be difficult to match.

To date, people are dissuaded from criticism in several ways. Who in the MMD, or outside it, would feel comfortable to criticise the inefficiencies, deficiencies, incompetence, ineptitudness of Rupiah Banda after seeing what is happening to Moses Muteteka? All sorts of political dogs have been unleashed on Muteteka in addition to the usual ones that never stop barking.

There is a rabid dog in the MMD and its government that never stops barking at anyone who tries to go near the President and criticise him or question his deeds. And that dog is well known in our country today. But like everything else, its day of reckoning will come. And that day is near.

There is nothing wrong Muteteka has said or done. Whatever he has said is true and can be proved to be so. If not, he is still entitled to an opinion on the conduct of public affairs by the people who govern this country. Muteteka is not an alien with no say in what goes on in this country. Muteteka has a constitutional right to criticise the way Rupiah is running the country.

One cannot say that only the people of Zambia will judge Rupiah and that will only be in 2011. What type of nonsense is this? Isn't Muteteka part of the people? What makes them think Muteteka is not part of the category “people”? And judgment on Rupiah will be passed every day, his performance will be evaluated on a daily basis.

Only stupid people will wait for 2011 to express their opinion on his performance when his daily decisions, actions and practices affect them. Moreover, democracy does not begin and end with elections. Representatives of the people are not only accountable at election time; they are supposed to be accountable on a daily basis. Moreover, we were told by the same characters that Rupiah will only govern for three years - so 2011 may be too late to make him accountable.

Unless they are telling us they will sponsor him again for another term of office in 2011. Anyway, such a move will not surprise us because these crooks never stick to their words, they don't honour their promises.

And it is not true, it is actually malicious, for anyone to say that Muteteka is criticising Rupiah because he is one of those who were not happy to see him adopted as the MMD's presidential candidate in the last election. This is nonsense.

Muteteka campaigned for Rupiah and can be said to have delivered in his constituency. But dishonest people always never give credit to others. They always attribute success to themselves, to their own actions. And they always attribute their failures to others, no matter how much they themselves have contributed to such an outcome.

What should matter is whether what Muteteka is saying is true or not and makes sense. In our view, the observations made by Muteteka are valid. And if criticism is valid, it should be made. To criticise is not to insult. But anyway stupid people can never distinguish between criticism and an insult.

If Rupiah and his sponsors do not learn how to manage criticism and take advice, their ending will be disastrous. They will end up more miserable than Frederick Chiluba.

It cannot be denied that Rupiah's leadership is very poor and he needs to work very hard to improve himself and his performance.

Rupiah was not made President because of his outstanding abilities, outstanding performance. They themselves - his own sponsors - were saying he was a compromise leader to help them get to 2011 as they were sorting themselves out.

They said it was cheaper for them as a party to field Rupiah because as acting president, he was able to use state resources to campaign. They never brought any other serious qualities to the fore. Why? It is simply because he had none.

And because he has none, he has to work very hard to acquire what he doesn't have because governing a country is not an easy undertaking. If Rupiah thinks being in State House is a holiday, a three-year party at which at the end he will be given a lucrative pension and a mansion, he is cheating himself.

He won't get these things for free; he has to work for them. Being President of the Republic of Zambia is not a ceremonial function; it is a serious executive function. If Rupiah got a job he is not capable of doing simply because the benefits were huge and there was an opportunity for him to get it, he will cry one of these days and regret his greed and vanity.

Political leadership is the capacity and will to rally men and women to a common purpose and the character which inspires confidence.

If Rupiah thinks being the President of this country is just to be driven around in a huge motorcade and be addressed as “your excellency”, he is in for a rude shock to be accompanied by a rude awakening. Effective leaders are paid to establish the vision for the future and set the strategy for getting there.

They motivate and inspire others to go in the right direction and they, along with everyone else, sacrifice to get there. This is what Rupiah should realise. It is not wise for his dogs to bark at anybody who tries to exercise his constitutional rights as a citizen to participate in the governance of this country by questioning or criticising the decisions and actions of the President.

There is need for Rupiah and his sponsors to realise that all citizens of this country, regardless of their political affiliation, have a right to participate in the shaping of their destiny directly without fear of reprisal.

Muteteka has the right to say what he said and others should be encouraged to do the same.

If our political leaders have shortcomings, they should not be afraid to have them pointed out and criticised, because they are supposed to serve the people. Anyone, no matter who, may point out their shortcomings.

If they are right, they should correct them. If what is being proposed by the critics will benefit the people, they should act upon it. With criticism, we can get rid of a bad style and keep the good.

Labels: BENNY TETAMASHIMBA, MOSES MUTETEKA, RUPIAH BANDA

posted by MrK @ 6:14 AM