Maravi

Increasingly drifting towards repression

Increasingly drifting towards repression
Written by Editor

It is increasingly becoming clear that Zambia is headed for a very difficult time politically. And the reason for this is not the over-quoted donor interference in the internal affairs of the country. It is simply that we are being governed by petty-minded people obsessed with power, for good or for bad.

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 would also want to run the very lives and control the thinking of every one of us, of every citizen they govern. And yet, ironically, this was the cornerstone of colonial oppression and repression: to smash any deviant thinking of the natives by whip, gun or shackle.

And one of the ways they are trying to achieve this state of affairs is by blackmailing and suppressing all criticisms and information designed to expose the fallacy of their policies and crimes of their league. As we have stated before, thus before the people realise, their hard-won uhuru spawns one tyrant after the other, prying on the original commitment of the masses. And in this way they try to become demigods whose decisions and actions cannot be questioned. All critics inside and outside the ruling party are crushed. To agree with everything they say is divine, but to disagree, one is in trouble.

Rupiah Banda and his government are becoming more and more associated with the most disagreeable messages and thoughts. They may say much of that linkage is unjustified, is the work of the enemy. They have the right to think that way but since it’s what people think, it must be appreciated as a deeply felt distaste, rather than a momentary irritation. They cannot simply dismiss it as mere false perception created by their enemies.

Rupiah and his government are also being linked to harshness: thought to be uncaring about the feelings of the people; and considered indifferent to the moral arguments over corruption, especially over their decision to acquit Frederick Chiluba and stop all appeal processes against his acquittal.

They are also thought to be arrogant and out of touch. Much of it may be no more than personal mannerisms that grate on the people after almost 18 years of the MMD in power. Some of it is insensitivity to the feelings of the people.

Corruption has disgraced them in the eyes of the public. Their support of Chiluba’s corruption and the way they have gone about it to defend him and protect him from going to jail has left a perception of corruption and unfitness for public service. And such distasteful perceptions can endure and do them damage for a long time.

They should face these issues head-on and deal with them. Their position on Chiluba has profoundly disappointed many of their supporters, and disgusted many others. Their reputation has suffered because they don’t seem to wear their hearts on their sleeves. Concern for others and magnanimity are important things for any serious political leadership of a country.

People now seem to need a rest from them, and they need time to reflect and listen to what is being said about them. They certainly need to do a lot about themselves.

They may look somewhat strong and confident today and boast about this and that or threaten this one or that one, but problems lie ahead. They don’t know where they are headed and that is disastrous. They have failed to define the purpose of their government: is it to fight corruption or to defend corrupt elements like Chiluba?

They seem to be guided only by the wish to destroy and humiliate their political enemies or opponents; and by the determination to be reelected in 2011 come what may. This is not a recipe for governing well. You cannot run a government forever on the principle of repression. Clearly, the MMD today is a coalition of nothing but people wanting to hold on to power so that they can keep their government jobs, privileges and business contracts.

That’s all the MMD is about today. The will to retain power at all costs is the one idea that the leaders of MMD and its government hold in common. But with the mounting pressure and the passage of time, that will prove insubstantial glue. The signs of division may today be no bigger than a small kapenta in a jar, but they will grow. The wheel of fortune turns and that which once appeared fresh, with the passing of time, goes to seed.

There is need for Rupiah and his friends to correctly read the signs of the time. However, we don’t think Rupiah is able to do so because he demonstrated the same inability in 1991 – he failed to read the signs of the time, he failed to appreciate the fact that UNIP’s time was over and the methods they were using to deal with the increasing public dissent could not work. And consequently, Rupiah and his UNIP friends lost power to the MMD in 1991.

Trying to stop or alter the tide of public opinion through repressive measures will not do. We say this because for as long as the majority of the people in this country feel cheated, suppressed or repressed, are not allowed meaningful democratic participation in the affairs of their country, there will always be tension and protests. Rupiah should also realise that he did not emerge from last year’s fraudulent elections with an absolute majority. This means that the majority of Zambian people do not support him, he is a minority president. And things can change very quickly against him.

Rupiah’s approach to dissent is very poor and will lead to a lot of problems. We say this because protests are a testing ground for any democracy. The ideals of free expression and citizen participation are easy to defend when everyone remains polite and in agreement on basic issues. But protesters – and their targets – do not agree on basic issues, and such disagreements may be passionate and angry.

The challenge then is one of balance: to defend the right to freedom of speech and assembly, while maintaining public order and countering attempts at intimidation or violence. To suppress peaceful protests in the name of order is to avoid repression.

There is no magic formula for achieving an acceptable balance. In the end, it depends of the commitment of the majority to maintaining the institutions of democracy and the precepts of individual rights; bearing in mind that to deny any person their human rights is to challenge their very humanity. Democratic societies are capable of enduring the bitterest disagreements among citizens – except for disagreement about the legitimacy of democracy itself.

Rupiah and his friends will not be allowed to do as they please on these issues. They will be challenged all the way. They will be made to realise that the power they have is not personal, does not belong to them and that it is for legitimate causes and not for abuse. They will be taught, one way or the other, that the democratic system we are trying to build in this country will be founded on the deeply held belief that government is best when its potential for abuse is curbed, and when it is held as close to the people as possible.

We know that for people from authoritarian backgrounds like Rupiah, they have an apprehension with democracy’s lack of power to oppress or repress. They think that deprives them of the authority to govern. This view is fundamentally wrong: democracies require that their governments be limited, not that they be weak. Viewed over the long course of history, democracies do indeed appear fragile. Democracies have by no means been immune to the tides of history; they have collapsed from political failure, succumbed to internal division.

But democracies have also demonstrated remarkable resilience over time, and have shown that with the commitment and informed dedication of their citizens, they can overcome severe economic hardship, reconcile social and ethnic division, and, when necessary, prevail in time of conflict and strife.

It is the very aspects of democracy that people like Rupiah fear that give it resilience. The process of debate, dissent and compromise that some point to as weaknesses are, in fact, democracy’s underlying strength.

Certainly, no one has ever accused democracies of being particularly efficient in their deliberations: democratic decision making can be a messy, grueling and time-consuming process. But in the end, a government resting upon the consent of the governed can speak and act with a confidence and authority lacking in a regime whose power is perched uneasily on the narrow ledge of fraudulent elections.

Rupiah and his friends don’t understand this. To them, everything has to go their way - no compromise or consensus building with others - because they are in power and in command of the repressive forces and can therefore use the police to crush any dissent. This is the way Rupiah has been governing. He doesn’t see the need to accommodate the views of anybody.

He can let Chiluba go scot-free regardless of the way others feel as long as it pleases and benefits him. Rupiah doesn’t know that coalition building is the essence of democratic action because it teaches us to negotiate with others, to compromise and to work within the constitutional system.

He also doesn’t realise that by working to establish a coalition, those with differences learn how to argue peaceably, how to pursue their goals in a democratic manner and ultimately how to live in a world of diversity. For Rupiah, there is only one way: to crush all opposition and dissent. But dissent and opposition are very difficult to crush permanently. And coming from UNIP, Rupiah should know this well.

Labels: CHILUBA, GOVERNANCE, MMD, RUPIAH BANDA

posted by MrK @ 6:36 AM