Reconciliation among leaders

Reconciliation among leaders
Written by Editor

Of late, we have been hearing calls from various stakeholders for our major political players in the country to reconcile and dialogue in a bid to find solutions to the country’s problems.Yesterday, Dr Francis Manda called on President Rupiah Banda, PF president Michael Sata and UPND president Hakainde Hichilema to take advantage of the festive period and reconcile.

Reconciliation among our people is a good thing and it should be encouraged. But for people to reconcile, there is need to know exactly the source of the problem or differences that should call for reconciliation.

If reconciliation is to take place among leaders, the primary requisite is to deal with the cause of differences among them. If this is not done, the reconciliation will remain mere words; it will not be visible in concrete actions. True reconciliation seeks and accepts forgiveness. And to have meaningful reconciliation, all are called to maturity, tolerance and responsibility.

But there is need for care and serious consideration as we urge our leaders to reconcile and dialogue. We need to guard against subjecting serious national issues to simple political reconciliation among President Banda, Sata and Hichilema.

If this is the kind of reconciliation some of our people are talking about, then the nation needs to think twice about it.

We say this because, like we have said before, democracy is a much more important human ideal to strive for than these ill-conceived political reconciliations. We think that political reconciliation is not a human ideal; it is a matter of political expedience in the struggle for political power. Some of the political reconciliations being bundled around are really without inherent virtues.

When we critically analyse issues in our country today, we do not see any need for President Banda, Sata and Hichilema to reconcile. We think that these leaders have been at each other’s neck merely because they have been involved in the struggle for political power in a multi-party democratic dispensation. And to suggest, even faintly, that political reconciliation should be more important than democracy will be tantamount to making a historical conversion that alters the course and purpose of the 1990 constitutional changes to reintroduce multi-party politics in Zambia.

When our people call for reconciliation among our leaders, there is need for justification. Political reconciliation should be seen against the background of the quest for democracy, of strengthening our multi-party democracy. Without this background, it becomes misleading to suggest that there is something inherently sacrosanct about political reconciliation in Zambia.

What Zambia needs today is to ensure that President Banda, Sata and Hichilema do not just become friends but should redeem this country from abject poverty. The mission of reconciliation among these leaders should be underpinned by the uplifting of the most trodden sections of our population. Above all, such a reconciliation should involve the nation, because it is the nation that needs to redeem and reconstruct itself.

By saying this, we are not in any way preaching hatred among our leaders. We are merely asking leaders to concentrate on giving to the nation that which is the nation deserves.

Experience has shown that almost all political leaders do not value or accept criticism. The critical voice is always considered as an enemy’s voice. Our leaders do not want to be called upon to account for their 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?

We have stated before that hatred and vengeance should find no place in an honest politician’s heart. People are free to fight with all the determination and strength and will in the world, but they should not do it out of hate and vengeance.

For political reconciliation to be meaningful, it is important to maintain and strengthen democratic structures; it shouldn’t rely totally on the goodwill of two or three individuals. And we hope that this kind of reconciliation does not lead to zpolitical insulation, complacency and unchecked use of political power and indeed political degeneracy and decay.

Such a reconciliation should be looked at in the context of advancing democracy and strengthening checks and balances in the governance of our country. Reconciliation among three leading politicians is a political phenomenon without inherent values. If the proposed reconciliation of our three top politicians is based on the values we have discussed above, then it comes near to being true reconciliation. If it doesn’t, then it is meaningless and not worth talking about.