Maravi

(UKZAMBIANS) Picking up pieces from broken down PF/UPND Pact

Picking up pieces from broken down PF/UPND Pact
By Dr. Mulenga Kaela
15th March 2011

Picking up pieces from broken down PF/UPND PactOn this very space last year, I did make a comment that – if PF/UPND pact stayed the course, the probability of them toughing out MMD from government was good. But I had my doubts concerning the pact’s survivability up to the elections time. That is, I suspected that the union would meltdown way before the elections. It has.

Why is this discussion important? It is because of the belief many people have – that given a change in government, perhaps our resources would be managed in a better way. Knowing that people are interested in generating wealth from which every Zambian would benefit rather than as is now – when a few souls are enjoying at the expense of many thousands who are worse off. If we continue on the same path we are on, the pre-independence colonial Zambia will be re-born.

Speaking on Diaspora Voice last weekend – Prof Clive Chirwa from UK, who is in the closed circuit of UPND/PF matters, pronounced the pact’s death. Chirwa said that in spite of his efforts to try and save it, the pact has now completely failed to achieve its goals. Michael Sata’s denial changes nothing.

Chirwa attributes these complications primarily due to the selfishness and desire of both King Cobra and Hakaimbe Hichilema (HH) to become president of Zambia. Apparently none of them could reach a workable compromise. The two leaders he said – “were diametrically opposite”. That is shameful because people have been counting on them to deliver a fresh look at solving things. Naturally Rupiah Banda’s MMD is celebrating.

In the meantime, the desire for change amongst ordinary Zambian people remains quite high. Although the need for change has not yet peaked to the proportions of Tunisia/Egyptian fever – one should not undermine the sensitivity of the situation. Zambians in general tend to prefer swimming with the devil they know – until there comes a time when they’re categorical for a new government. They did so in 1991 when they ushered in MMD from UNIP. One cannot take people for granted, especially when poverty begins to bite.

Shortage of food and long ques drove Kaunda out of power. Today the yawning gap between the “haves” in Zambia and the “down-trodden” ordinary Hamaundus and Jeres might be the spark that could trigger discontent. Moreover, the high incidence of corruption amongst officials, coupled with the inability of the present MMD government to listen to the people – may boil by the time elections are conducted. Currently, MMD is surviving because the opposition has failed to excite people.

Therefore, as I judge things, although the winning equation seems for now to have tilted back in favour of MMD – PF/UPND still have a chance. Provided of course, they strategize and organize well.

The work at hand

Although I describe the situation as being lucid and the fact that PF/UPND pact is now dead – there are a number of things which the two major opposition parties ought to grasp, do or implement, if they want to pick up the pieces and give it another shot.

First of all, they need to understand as to why RB’s MMD fiercely opposed first, the 50% majoritarian rule of winning by a 50 + 1% and then also blocked the holding of a referendum on it before elections. Why? Yes, it is because with a simple majority rule and in a situation where PF/UPND are working separately – with also many smaller parties around such as FDD, NAREP, UNIP, ULP, ZED, ZRP, Heritage Party and others – splitting the vote works in favour of MMD. So I don’t understand why HH, who is younger with more opportunities to stand as a president later, could not compromise on the question of the pact’s presidential candidacy.



In theory, even PF has also a chance to win on a simple majority. But in practice, that is a tall order. Matters become even more complicated because – though Michael Sata is known to be a pragmatist, but he is deemed weak as a strategist.



As an illustration, in 2001, when Andy Mazoka had the best chance to beat Levy Mwanawasa on this very simple majority rule – he fumbled by adopting a “be a Tonga first” formula. This bad strategy cost him the presidency. He would have easily beaten Mwanawasa had he listened to the advice we (me and those who were with him at school in Kasama) gave him. All he needed was to involve the Kasama/Mungwi Secondary School boys, front and centre in his campaign. That would have given his candidacy a desirable national appeal. Armed with his Bemba speaking skills, he could have used that language to spike his campaign tours and win more votes on C/Belt, in Luapula and Northern Provinces.

By the same token, today since we know that both Sata and HH lack the national character – Chipata to Mongu and Livingstone to Mbala – the strategy they ought to use is the “reverse”, aka segmentation. That is, one should concentrate the resources and effort in areas where each party is most popular. Spreading resources thinly, across Zambia by fielding candidates every where – especially when you are faced with incumbency, is not wise. Therefore if both Sata and HH fail, the first group to blame will be the backroom boys. For they should be aware that – every politician has to be polished by his/her operatives. Even KK relied on his young Turks, behind the scene people who worked 24/7 to implement his ‘bigger picture’ vision.

In my opinion, the better method today would be to have UPND concentrate on Southern Province where – if they organize effectively, it stands a good chance to shut MMD out. So can PF block MMD in Lusaka province, C/Belt, Luapula and N Provinces. And since we know that RB would sweep E Province – one should avoid wasting time there. This approach would leave only W Provinve, NW Province and Central Provinces as mixed battle ground, where each major party has an equal chance to win some and lose some. If by the end of the day the combined opposition MPs form the majority – they would then begin to influence things.

Although I am not sure about the provisions of forming a coalition government in Zambia – but this scenario at least would make it possible to hold whoever is in government accountable. And the chances of government getting away with bad decisions would be minimal.

Another chance open to the opposition, would be to consider building bridges and coalitions with: – Church groups, civil society in general, university and college students – the youth, labor unions, women and peasant farmers. For example, Churches and civil society have been vocal when it comes to the constitution amendments referendum, Chiluba’s acquittal and now the Mongu shootings. This tactic worked well for MMD in 1991.

The inability to reach these groups would be a clear symptom that the opposition is not ready to rule Zambia. And since elections will happen way before September, 2011 (as announced by president Banda), PF & UPND had better double up in organizing. This is a monumental task.

When it comes to fighting corruption – the opposition has also got a couple of arsenals they can use. First, would be to recognize that the donors of economic aid hate corruption because it drains money from their tax payers destined for poor Zambians, So, they were not amused when RB’s government removed the anti-corruption clause from our statutes. One can earn votes by simply campaigning on Levy’s anti-corruption legacy.

In addition to these issues I have outlined above – as Prof Chirwa himself told his radio audience, the tax policies adopted by MMD especially the elimination of windfall tax at a time when copper prices are at an all time high of $10,000/MT is sad. It is now when Zambia should capitalize on maximizing revenues from exhaustible assets like copper. A campaign theme crafted on this “lost opportunity” could earn votes. The instant flow of information on internet means that Zambians know what is going on. Why not tap into that?

Some observations

Unless the opposition political parties in Zambia – more specifically PF & UPND can retool and revise their own strategies, the win for MMD in the forth coming presidential and parliamentary elections is fait accompli. The political parties’ Manifestos must be translated into simpler, sound bite messages. People are looking for issue themes to support. You can’t rely on them reading the Manifestos.

And that MMD win is within grasp has been accentuated by the collapse of PF/UPND pact. Splitting of votes among half a dozen opposition groups could solidify a simple majority formula in favour of MMD. In addition, Michael Sata’s “democracy deficiency”, i.e. the failure of PF to conduct intra-party elections, also affirms peoples’ belief that Sata is dictatorial. This feeling will persist until when Sata secures a clear mandate from his party’s national convention. There is also the perception and label given to him by KK – that he is not “presidential material”, also work against him.

Therefore, if PF wants to form the next government – it is contingent upon its backroom boys, researchers and strategists – to not only polish their leader’s image but to compose a winnable message. If it was in North America or UK, a number of public relations gurus are be available for hire. In 2009, when Banda discovered that he had image problems, I am told he sought help. I am not sure if Sata would go for this. He would probably dismiss it as gimmickry from the West, and out of touch Diasporans. Yet we know that even in Zambia things have changed.

Another obstacle which also perhaps handicaps PFs strategists – is the suspicion that Sata truly believes in miracles and fate. He believes that, just as Senegal’s Abdoulaye Wade eventually became a president after so many attempts, and as it has also happened to other veteran African opposition leaders in Sierra Leone and elsewhere – he too will become president. In other words, Sata is convinced that his chance to be president of Zambia is written in his destiny book. That thinking by itself is a hindrance because by becoming rigid and unimaginative, that impedes strategizing.

One other draw back working against the opposition – is the fact that institutions – ECZ, Judiciary, Police, etc., assigned with the responsibility to ensure that laws and the rules of a fair game are upheld and enforced, are either dysfunctional or partial (taking sides). In such a case the task of replacing a sitting government is daunting. But this is the more reason why the opposition should de-campaign against the ruling party.

For example, cadres and noise makers like William Banda in Lusaka and others like him on C/Belt go unpunished even though they trespass the public space. As time draws closer to the elections, I am sure MMD will recruit many more of such hooligans. Shouldn’t this be a good issue to present to Zambians? Therefore whether PF and UPND have the capacity to match this challenge remains doubtful. With his many years as MMD’s general secretary, one would have thought that Sata is familiar with these dirty tactics. Apparently not! To win an election in Zambia, it appears as if the services of these ‘Kaponyas’ is essential. That’s odd!

And finally, because of incumbency, MMD will also have plenty of resources at their disposal. This is in addition to their access to other resources offered by external supporters and raw materials exploiters such as China and foreign mining companies. I don’t see signs from either PF or UPND to cultivate friendly relations with foreign governments or bodies. Do they have diplomats in that party?

Therefore, assuming that my analysis is not completely off – unless PF and its close associates, the UPND can re-think their strategies and act quickly – the political battle for attaining Plot #1 is already lost. There I have said it!!

Labels: 2011 ELECTIONS, PF-UPND

posted by MrK @ 3:57 PM