Maravi

Let’s reflect and meditate deeply upon the Barotse Agreement

COMMENT - The key thing to understand about devolution of power is - devolution to where? If it is to the provincial level, it can simply mean replacing a national elite with a local elite. In Zambia, it also means an increase in tribalism/regionalism. This is why I would be in favour of decentralisation to the local government level, which puts power much closer to the people.

Let’s reflect and meditate deeply upon the Barotse Agreement
By The Post
Sun 28 Nov. 2010, 04:00 CAT

IT is not right to try and criminalise the Barotse Agreement of 1964. There's nothing seditious or treasonable about the Barotse Agreement.

In fact, it is a brilliant document that should be studied by all our leaders and all our people so that valuable lessons can be learnt from it and used to improve the general governance of our country.

It is difficult to understand why people should be so sensitive about any discussion of the Barotse Agreement when this country actually needs more and more 'barotse agreements' in all our regions.

The Barotse Agreement is not about secession. There's nothing in that document that talks about secession.

Moreover, how can a document that formed the basis of the unity between Barotseland and the rest of Northern Rhodesia be at the same time a document of division, disunity or secession?

A return to the observance of the Barotse Agreement will deepen democracy and improve the governance of the country instead of weakening it.

We say this because the Barotse Agreement deals with nothing but devolution of power, albeit in a very limited way.

It gives the people of Western Province and their traditional rulers the duty and the right to participate meaningfully in the management of their resources; it gives them the opportunity to participate in shaping their destiny without having to look up to someone in Lusaka every day.

And this is what meaningful democracy entails. This is what government of the people, by the people, for the people means. You cannot have meaningful democracy in a dispensation where the people don't have meaningful participation in the affairs of their communities.

Government of and by the people means that the citizens of a democratic society share in its benefits and in its burdens by accepting the task of self-government.

And in this way when such citizens fail, they blame nobody because they are made to take responsibility for the fate of the society in which they themselves have chosen to live. In the end, they get a government they deserve.

The government in Lusaka is very distant from the majority of our people to be able to know how they feel, to quickly understand and appreciate their anxieties and sorrows, their joys and hopes.

We think one of the most important American contributions to democratic practice has been the development of a system of checks and balances to ensure that political power is dispersed and centralised.

It is a system 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.

And basically, this is what the Barotse Agreement is all about. It is not about secession. It is simply about people participating in the things that matter in their daily lives. It is not about complicated things but about the very simple and basic things about life.

The Barotse Agreement is simply about enabling the people to win material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children.

That's all the Barotse Agreement is all about. And this being the case, why do politicians in Lusaka always get so frightened whenever there's mention of the Barotse Agreement?

The truth is that without proper decentralisation of power, patronage becomes very easy and cheap. All that one needs to do is to set his eyes on the man occupying State House, pledge loyalty and support to him, defend all his iniquities and paint a glorious picture of his political, economic achievements until when one sees that this is no longer sustainable and then switch on to another.

This is what those who live by patronage do - every man occupying State House will always be their friend.

In this way they will survive financially and otherwise. Of course they know that this mode of survival is not possible where there are too many centres of power. And because of this, they will always remain opposed to meaningful democratisation that is anchored on proper decentralisation of power.

There's clearly nothing criminal, seditious, treasonable or nationally divisive in the Barotse Agreement. You can even forget about the name if you have a problem with hearing it and call it something else. What matters is not the name of that agreement but its contents.

The elements of that agreement can, with some modifications here and there, be applicable to all parts of our country as a means of deepening democracy by decentralising power.

In fact, more needs to be added to the elements contained in the Barotse Agreement to make decentralisation more thorough, efficient, effective and orderly.

We should recognise as a matter of conscience that there have been many faults and errors in the approaches we have taken to govern our country. The return to multiparty politics in 1991 aroused popular hopes but soon became one of the greatest frustrations for our people.

We say this because other than just allowing the formation of more political parties and their participation in elections, democracy was not deepened in any way - there was no decentralisation of power in any meaningful way.

Power even became more centralised at State House. The new dispensation appears to have set itself the task of removing the traditional leaders from meaningful participation in the affairs of their communities. And they used every means to this end.

The entire state apparatus was placed at the disposal of a clique of corrupt leaders. And when their fraudulent methods proved to be inadequate, they resorted to attacks on those seeking to broaden and deepen democracy.

Time has proved that centralising power in the hands of one man and the band of his opportunistic friends in Lusaka was absolutely incapable of solving our country's grave problems. To the contrary, they aggravated them.

Let us learn from other people and the way they govern themselves. Let's look at the United Kingdom and the way Scotland and Wales fit into this scheme.

What the Barotse Agreement is asking for is nowhere near that United Kingdom set up where there is deep devolution of power. It merely seeks some basic elements of a decentralised local government system.

There's no need to be prying on people's ignorance and pretending to be patriotic when one is simply an opportunist who wants to always benefit from being close to State House in a highly centralised system. Let's study the Barotse Agreement and discuss it honestly.

An honest evaluation of the document will clearly reveal that there's nothing to fear in it and there's nothing nationally divisive about it.

The Barotse Agreement is not a secessionist document; it is a document of national unity - a document that united our people who were divided by history of colonialism and conquest.

There will be no progress in this country if no serious attention is paid to the dispersion and decentralisation of power and to ensuring that government is held as close to the people as possible. Let's not criminalise the Barotse Agreement. Let those who have something to say on it say it without fear of reprisal.

And let's open our hearts and allow ourselves to be guided in our policies and actions by the best elements of that agreement. Let's reflect and meditate deeply on the Barotse Agreement and see what lessons we can draw from it.

Labels: BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT, DEVOLUTION, ELITISM

posted by MrK @ 4:35 PM