Maravi

‘A rather confusing political situation’

‘A rather confusing political situation’
By Editor
Thu 07 Jan. 2010, 04:00 CAT

Some people wonder why Catholic bishops, priests and nuns are today so concerned about the subtleties of economic, political and social issues. They wonder what the bishops, priests and nuns expect to contribute to such issues and discussions about them and what bearing their religious themes could have on such clearly secular decisions.

This challenge is all too common these days in our country, especially as Catholic bishops, priests and nuns become more actively involved in addressing the political, economic, social and cultural crises our people face. They are able to participate meaningfully in these issues, and in some cases provide very valuable insights and leadership, because their church has offered them a body of social wisdom, based ultimately on biblical teachings and principles, that speak to the conditions of our people’s everyday life.

This social teaching of the Catholic Church that these bishops, priests and nuns are following and propagating contains not so much of a specific platform of political action but a dynamic framework for searching for relevant solutions. There is a very important theological foundation for this linking of secular elaborations of the issues that today affect the daily lives of our people and the texts of the Catholic Church’s social teaching. For them, the hopes and forces which are today moving the world in its very foundations are not foreign to the dynamism of the Gospel, which frees men and women from personal sin and from its consequences in social life.

And this line is not new. It can be traced back to the Second Vatican Council, The Church in the Modern World (1965): The joys and hopes, the sorrows and anxieties, of the women and men of this age, especially the poor and those in any way oppressed, these are the joys and hopes, the sorrows and anxieties, of the followers of Jesus Christ.

Clearly, this means that human dignity flourishes within real community, and the vitality of community depends upon each and everyone’s personal development and commitment.

It is in this context that we should try and understand what Bishop George Lungu is saying. In the story we carry today, Bishop Lungu has expressed concern about the political atmosphere in our country today. He has observed that the political situation is rather confusing and that there hasn’t been movement on a number of important issues that the Church has pointed out to the authorities that needed to be addressed. He touched on the issue of regionalism and tribalism, observing that this issue has not been put to rest because people are still talking about it and feel it is still going on.

They raised this issue shortly after the 2008 presidential elections, raising concerns about what appeared to be regional or tribal voting. When they raised this issue, those in power, those who had won these elections did not take kindly to it. They accused them of all sorts of things. Instead of mulling over things and trying to understand what they were saying, they dismissed them and the issues they were raising. This was the easiest thing for them to do – denounce those speaking and the issues they are raising. Anyone can do that. What is difficult is to correct problems, rectify errors and change the course of things. But problems and issues don’t disappear by just simply dismissing those raising them. Problems have to be solved to disappear.

Bishop Lungu has also raised the issue of the government letting down the farming community. He has raised the old question of Farmer Input Support Programme, which previously they used to call the Fertiliser Support Programme. A lot of issues were raised in 2008 over this programme. It was an election year and those who were in control of government machinery used this programme to aid their campaign. They didn’t bother to listen much to the criticisms that were being raised about this programme. The problems of 2008 are still with us and they have probably gotten worse because instead of our people freeing themselves from the dependency on government for inputs, they have become more dependent. And while their dependence on government is increasing, the support from government is reducing. The bags of fertiliser that were given in 2008 have now been reduced. And as Bishop Lungu has correctly observed, this may also mean a reduction in acreage which will result in reduced food security in the country.

When criticism was being raised about all these issues, those who did so were called all sorts of names and were seen as destructive, as people bent on destructive criticism – and not constructive criticism. This is still happening today. There is no criticism that is voiced publicly that those in charge of government today seem to consider or take as constructive. Every critic, in their view, is against them; is an agent or supporter of the opposition. They are even forgetting that with or without the opposition, criticism will always be there. It was there under the one party state. But of course it was not tolerated and those who engaged in it were seen as foreign agents and at best as enemies within.

Criticism per se is non-existent. Anything else is destructive. Criticism is an expression of hate, not pure disagreement.

In due course, the phrases “constructive criticism” and “destructive criticism” are coined in order to place those who criticise them in some useful categories so that they can be easily dealt with. We must all belong to them, we must all support and defend them or be condemned to be destructive, disgruntled or dismissed as agents of the opposition or even foreign governments, the donors. The sponsors of this dialectic are not even 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 youth of low literacy who they intoxicate and destroy with Chibuku and Tujilijili. In fact, no regard is ever had for the patriotism of people like Bishop Lungu and others who are pointing out things that have gone wrong and urging them to correct them, unless they happen to die.

Why do they behave in this way? We ask this question because even some good people we have known, when they get into government, they quickly change. We think this is so because those in our ruling party usually consider themselves as the government and government as the state. The ruling party, government and their leaders become as sacred as the state. Any denigration of these institutions and their leaders is tantamount to treason – or at least those who do so are threatened with treason charges.

And what do they hope to get out of such political practices? Tyrannical rulers and uncritical people is the only discernable result.
Probably we should also ask them what they mean by “constructive criticism” and “destructive criticism”. A keen look at the way they use these phrases invariably reveals 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, public support and ultimately their hold on power. “Constructive criticism” means flattery, agreement and praise of all that they do – wrong or right, palatable or unpalatable.

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. And to them, it doesn’t matter where the criticism comes from, the reaction is the same. If a ruling party member criticises them, questions the actions of the president, he will be treated in the same way as someone from outside the party criticising their leadership. They will not hesitate to flush them out of the party. Hence, whenever criticism is raised, their first instinct is to smear it with the filth of one being an agent of this or that, or of having been paid by this one or that one to voice that criticism – however greedy they themselves may be. Every crisis they face, however self-created, will eventually be blamed on other people – the critics and their alleged sponsors.

We don’t know how they would react to Nelson Mandela who says: “If criticism is valid, it must be made.”

If we have shortcomings, we should not be afraid to have them pointed out and criticised because this is the only sure way of us correcting them quickly so that they don’t become permanent disabilities. And those whose job is to serve the people, it doesn’t make sense not to allow the people they are serving or are supposed to serve criticise them. But in this country, it seems immediately one criticises those in power, he or she is removed from the category “people” and become something else without any citizen rights.

You are only part of the people if you support them and agree with everything they say or do. Anyone, no matter who, should be able to point out the shortcomings of those in public service, of those who occupy public office. If they are right, those in public office should correct the mistakes they are pointing out. If what they are saying or proposing will benefit the people, they should act upon it. Again criticism is good for people, especially those in public service, and for public institutions. It is hard for anyone or any political party to avoid mistakes, but they should make as few as possible. And once a mistake is made, they should correct it, and the more quickly and thoroughly, the better.

Labels: GEORGE LUNGU, ZEC

posted by MrK @ 4:20 AM