Maravi

Intolerance: the bane of our political leaders

Intolerance: the bane of our political leaders
Written by Editor

If criticism is valid, it must be made. And all citizens of this country have a right to participate in the shaping of their destiny directly without fear of reprisal. Citizens of this country should not hesitate to criticise public officers and give them their suggestions.

It is said that “he who is not afraid of death by a thousand cuts dares to unhorse the emperor” – this is the indomitable spirit needed in our struggle to build a more prosperous, more just, more fair, more humane nation. And the weapon we need most in this struggle is criticism and self-criticism because with it, we can get rid of bad styles and keep the good.

We fully agree with and share the observations and concerns raised by Mansa Catholic Diocese vicar general Fr Mambwe Mpasa when he says: “Zambians will not stop talking for as long as things are not going right in the country. Government should not expect people to keep quiet even when things are not well. This government is wasting time fighting every opposing view, but people cannot simply be told to shut up. When things are not going on well, we have a right as Zambians to speak out. And this does not mean that whoever criticises government is a member of the opposition party, no.”

As we have repeatedly pointed out, and will continue to do so, criticism is good for people and institutions that are part of public life. And whenever it is valid, it should be made in a spirit of absolute honesty and sincerity. No one should be criticised falsely or maliciously no matter how much they are detested. No individual or institution should expect to be free from criticism and from the scrutiny of those who give them their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don’t. The criticism and scrutiny of one another will always be necessary. But, of course, it will be more effective if it is made in an honest and sincere manner.

We will not achieve much with this growing intolerance to criticism that is starting to characterise all aspects of our politics and national life.

As we say, dust will accumulate if a room is not cleaned regularly, our faces will get dirty if they are not washed regularly. Our political leaders’ minds may also collect dust, and also need sweeping and washing. The proverb “Running water is never stale and a door-hinge is never worm-eaten” means that constant motion prevents the inroads of germs and other organisms. To check-up regularly our work and in the process develop a democratic style of work, to fear neither criticism nor self-criticism, and to apply such good popular maxims as “Say all you know and say it without reserve”, “Blame not the speaker or the critic but be warned by his words” and “Correct mistakes if you have committed them and guard against them if you have not” – this is the only effective way to prevent all kinds of political dust and germs from contaminating the minds of our political leaders and all other representatives of our people.

We shouldn’t lose sight and understanding of the fact that the main task of criticism is to point out political and organisational mistakes and weaknesses in the governance of our country. Criticism is a weapon for strengthening and increasing our capacity to overcome our weaknesses and deficiencies. The purpose of criticism is to increase the capacity of our political leaders and other representatives to deliver on their promises and commitments to the masses of our people and it should not be seen as a means for unjustified personal attacks on them. If they have shortcomings, they shouldn’t be afraid to have them pointed out and criticised, because they are there to serve the people. Any one, no matter who, may point out their shortcomings. If he is right, they should correct them. If what is being proposed will benefit the people, they should act upon it. It is said that political leaders who are taught by mistakes and setbacks, become more wiser to handle the affairs of their people much better. It is hard for any political party or person to avoid mistakes, but they should make as few as possible. Once a mistake is made, they should correct it, and the more quickly and thoroughly, the better.

Again, as we have pointed out before, one of our biggest hurdles to progress is our leaders’ inability to accept criticism and to respect the right of every citizen to participate in their own way in the shaping of their own destiny. Our leaders are so intolerant to criticism and they try very hard at every turn to smash any deviant thinking. And one of the most effective ways they try to achieve this has been through blackmail and suppression of all criticism and information designed to expose the fallacy of their policies and the crimes of their league. Thus before people realise it, their hard-won constitutional rights which they practice every five years at the polls, spawns one tyrant after another, using the mandate obtained from fraudulent elections. All the leaders become demi-gods of wrath. All critics are crushed. To agree with everything they say is divine, but to disagree is a crime, a sin.

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 malcontents. The citizen must belong to them or be condemned. The sponsors of the 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 idle youths of low literacy and other opportunists. In fact, no regard is ever had for the patriotism of the critics, unless they happen to die.

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 those in power, of the President. Criticism per se is non-existent. Anything else is destructive. Opposition is an expression of hate, not pure disagreement. They are incapable of being criticised without feeling rancoured about it. In fact, all the time the impression given is that to criticise is to condemn or curse in the biblical fashion. Hence, whenever opposition or criticism emerges, their first instinct is to smear those behind it with the filth of being sponsored or of being under the payroll of some foreign agency – however greedy they themselves may be. Every domestic crisis, however self-created, will eventually be blamed on the foreigners and their local agents – the critics. Despite 60 per cent of their budget being funded by foreigners, they will still not hesitate to accuse their opponents, their critics of being sponsored by foreigners to destabilise their government.

Here is the truth about our leaders. Even the most blood-thirsty tyrant will require the press to kneel down and praise their glorious leadership and ignore their heinous deeds. The self-righteousness of these characters is truly embarrassing.

It is quite true that acceptance of criticism implies the highest respect for human ideal, and that its denial suggests a conscious and unconscious lack of humanity on our part. Intolerance to criticism must surely rank as one of the worst forms of immorality in human affairs. We can see the horror of this in people who can publicly threaten to spill the blood of a priest for simply expressing views that are critical of their leaders and their party. And this subculture of blood is nursed with speeches from the President himself at public fora.

What we are striving to say is that our political leaders should take pride in their critics, whether they agree with them or not. Until they can allow their people the fullest and unencumbered expression in politics, they are in danger of teaching them a very simplified version of this complex universe. A society without critics is a human hell where leaders indulge in their anarchical instincts without moral compunction. History always tells us that the greatest nations respected their critics. True, tyrants all over the world and throughout history have always been terrified by critics, but ultimately more tolerant societies have parted ways with their politicians and endorsed the contributions of their critics.

We seem to be really stuck in a culture of zealous worship of political leaders, a culture which would look primitive even in the eyes of our ancestors. We have established a reputation for intolerance that is difficult to match. Today people are being dissuaded from criticism in several ways. First, the President makes loud pronouncements against critics and criticism, calling them all sorts of names and accusing them of all sorts of things. Should this fail, they resort to harassment and intimidation in all sorts of ways. A grave paucity of vision and an obsession with violence against critics will be remembered as evidence of our ‘proud’ civilisation.

We don’t seem to be learning from history. Yet history tells us that the greatest epochs in mankind’s weary journey are characterised, not by subjugation nor downgrading of critics. The only discernable preoccupation of our leaders is the destruction of reason and intellect for the mistaken fear of losing power. What is distinctly lacking among our leaders is a culture of tolerance and humility which places the humanity of others before self and accepts that all citizens have a right to participate in the shaping of their destiny without fear of being victimised, of being harassed by the President and his followers or supporters.

Tolerance and respect for our fellow citizens will make us allow our critics to express their opinions about our views without inhibition, whether these seem to be unpalatable or not. At the same time, we should expect the same treatment or privilege when our turn comes. This is not something we achieve instinctively. Rather, we develop it consciously and respectfully. For, our very instinct would drive us to throttling our opponents in argument, or, better still, smack them with a deadly blow.

In our view, the problem with all this is their fear of criticism, fear of being undermined by honest criticism. Anyone who dares challenge our demi-gods is a subvert. And because of this anti-criticism culture, our people lose the habit of thinking and exchanging creative views and thoughts. People have no real interest in the future nation – only the present owes them anything.

This is the point Fr Mpasa is making. And his observations and concerns deserve our greatest attention, considerations and even meditation.

Labels: GOVERNANCE, MAMBWE MPASA, POLITICS

posted by MrK @ 2:11 PM