Maravi

‘Father of the nation’

‘Father of the nation’
Written by Editor

THE observations made by Archbishop Telesphore Mpundu on African leaders' obsession with excessive power deserve serious considerations and meditation. Archbishop Mpundu's caution to Zambians against addressing, or looking at, the President of the country as "father of the nation" also deserves serious attention.

Truly, to suggest that the Republican President of our country is metaphorically equivalent to fatherhood in a family, and that citizens are equivalent to children, is a very dangerous form of paternalism fundamentally in conflict with the possibility of democracy in a modern political system.

This characterisation and application of fatherhood, that seems to have been drawn from the African customs, is anachronistic and false and yet it has been part of the case largely used by our politicians to insulate themselves from honest criticism. The use of "father of the nation" has been based on a failure to appreciate that the price of modern political order is calculated on the basis of citizens being masters over their political representatives, and not some obscure 'fatherhood' of convenience.

We say this because in a democracy citizens have a right and duty to hold their leaders accountable, to criticise them openly and to impeach them if they misbehave. They also have the right to arrest and prosecute them for abuse of public resources and office. But one can't do that to his father.

We say this because in African custom the father was the head of the house, if anything went wrong, a child would not complain to the father or criticise him openly; the child would not repudiate him and 'impeach' him as the head of the house and the father, but would seek other ways of addressing the problem. You will never get a child telling his father to step down because he has failed to run the affairs of the house.

The issue of the President being the "father of the nation" is a phenomenon in our politics without inherent virtues. The substantive meaning of "father of the nation" 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 the President being the "father of the nation".

Political leadership in our country must be a dialectical result of competing political parties and individuals under common broad-based democratic rules under which everyone is equal. One can't compete for power, office with one's own father. If the President is the "father of the nation" how does he compete on an equal footing, on a level play field with other politicians?

Clearly, this "father of the nation" nonsense is tolerated because our body politic characteristically lacks tolerant value premises and is not based on an accommodative spirit that accepts more than one leader. All other political leaders must be the children of that one leader, that one "father of the nation". To suggest that the President is the "father of the nation" is tantamount to saying that everything in the country will have to flow from the 'father' down to the children and what is good for the 'father' is good for everyone, a suggestion which is patently false as far as what is known about the diversity of the human condition goes.

Clearly, our politics since independence have been less than satisfactory on the score of broadening democracy. There are two possible explanations for this unsatisfactory performance on the question of democracy. The first is that we have not had a serious commitment to the goal of the struggle for democracy. We have taken the President as representing everyone when this is actually not the case; the President does not ipso facto represent everyone. He represents himself and at most his political party.

The political, cultural and economic interest of the Zambian nation are too complex to be embodied in one 'father'. Failure to realise this constitutes part of the explanation for this "father of the nation" nonsense.

So we are clearly stuck in this culture of zealous worship of the President, and this is why we even attempt to elevate them so high above fellow citizens, fellow politicians and try very hard to shield them from any criticism, fearing that they might be undermined by honest criticism. It is for this reason that calling a President who tells lies a liar is seen as an insult; and a President who steals, a thief is seen as an insult. Whatever criticism is directed at the President in this country is an insult. We have not forgotten how a few years ago some characters went round complaining that we were insulting president Levy Mwanawasa when we seriously criticised and denounced his complicity in the decision to grant a nolle prosequi to Kashiwa Bulaya. And some of these characters are still in government today and are still saying the same thing about our criticism and denouncing of Rupiah's misdeeds.

We should be ashamed of ourselves. We don't see the Europeans elevating even their most illustrious sons to the position of "father of the nation". We don't hear such nonsense in Europe or America. Is it because they have no 'fathers'? They value their fathers but they are able to distinguish between political leadership and family affairs. It is this separation, this understanding of the difference between a political leader and a parent in a family that makes it easy for them to hold their leaders accountable. It also makes it possible for the political leadership to respect the feelings of the citizens because they see them not as their children but as their masters, as their employers. In this way when the citizens cough, the political leadership shakes. Not this arrogance and pomposity that we see. Here, even the most useless politician feels he is above the ordinary citizen, the taxpayer. They don't even realise that the cars they drive, the houses they live in and their salaries are paid for by the taxpayer. Just listen to them address the people - it's never a question of a servant talking to a master; it's much more of a master talking to servants. And just look at even the way they carry themselves; the pomposity, the arrogance, the lack of humility. Look at the way they use power; they use it as if it is something personal, something that belongs to them, something that is there for them to enjoy. And because of this attitude, this "father of the nation" nonsense, they fail to see the exercise of power as something that must always be accompanied by the constant practice of self-limitation and modesty. What our people are seeking is not 'fathers' but genuine democracy in which the leaders are servants of the electorate and not its masters. What our people are seeking is politicians who are aware that politics is not an arena for people to become lords, masters, 'fathers' of the nation but an area of great importance for promoting justice, development and community among all. And this is why in Matthew 10:14 we are told: "Whoever wishes to be the first among you must be slave of all." It doesn't say must be master of all. It says servant of all. Can a 'father' be a servant of his children? It's not possible. The 'father' is the master of the house. There is need for our politicians to be conscious of their specific and proper role in the political community.

We agree with Archbishop Mpundu that it is almost like idolatry to refer to the President as "father of the nation"; it is a title which is very excessive and it tends to give excessive deference to the dignity of the President. The President is simply one of us, and not our father. It is this attitude that makes our presidents think every citizen is there to kneel before them like we do with our chiefs. They even think chiefs should kneel before them. Look at the way the President of this country relates to chiefs. The President behaves as if he is the paramount chief of Zambia. This is not a monarchy. It is a republic with citizens, not a monarchy with subjects of his majesty. And no amount of association with monarchs, with kings will make the President of this country an emperor.

This is a country of equals where even our chiefs, in law, are our equals and are subjected to the same laws as us. And this explains why when our chiefs commit crime, they go to the same prisons where their subjects go. We have many examples of chiefs who have been imprisoned in this country. But look at our presidents! Even securing a conviction against them is an issue; the law must be bent to get them off the hook, to save them from going into jail. This is the product of this "father of the nation" nonsense. As Archbishop Mpundu has asked: "Why should an individual representing the presidency be worshipped?"

Labels: PRESIDENCY

posted by MrK @ 5:50 AM