Maravi

Is it really a family feud?

Is it really a family feud?
By The Post
Mon 25 Apr. 2011, 04:00 CAT

The bells that were tolling on Bishop Paul Duffy and Archbishop Telesphore Mpundu are now tolling on Bishop Alick Banda. What is his crime? Criticising Rupiah Banda’s decree to write off outstanding payments from those who had been offered to purchase parastatal and government houses on the Copperbelt.

Bishop Banda dismissed Rupiah’s decree as an election gimmick to win votes. Rupiah says he is surprised that his own relative, Bishop Banda, can condemn him for writing off tenants’ debts.

He thinks there could be a family feud between them from the village.

Rupiah says he finds this very strange coming from his own bishop, his own brother, somebody he knows very well from his family. He says “…

Family feuds sometimes are worse than when people are fighting who don’t know each other”.

This is not a family feud. Bishop Banda is not a family bishop, he is a bishop of the Catholic Church in charge of the Diocese of Ndola.

Bishop Banda is not representing his village and relatives in this very important position he occupies in the Catholic Church in general and the Diocese of Ndola in particular.

Bishop Banda is one of the top leaders of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics and of the over four million Catholics in Zambia.

Clearly, Bishop Banda’s obligations to the 1.2 billion Catholics, who include over four million Zambians, take precedence over loyalty to his village members, to his family and relatives.

Of course, this may be difficult for Rupiah to understand because for him, everything is based on nepotism, on wako ni wako.

One who has a village mentality, an attitude of nepotism, regionalism or tribalism cannot be fit to be a Catholic bishop.

It would actually be criminal on Bishop Banda’s part to let things slide for the sake of a personal relationship with Rupiah when he has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he comes from the same village as him, he is a relative, a fellow tribesman, or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms with Rupiah, a relative.

The result of this would be that both the organisation and the individual would be harmed.

It wouldn’t be right for Bishop Banda to say nothing on this issue while knowing perfectly well what is wrong.

These things are happening in Bishop Banda’s diocese.

And it wouldn’t be right for him to hear incorrect views, ideas being expressed without rebutting them, but instead take them calmly as if nothing had happened.

Rupiah may seem to be doing something very good by writing off those debts, but in reality, he is harming the interests of the masses, he is planting seeds of corruption and arbitrariness in the use of power.

It would be strange on Bishop Banda’s part to see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but allow him to continue.

What Rupiah is doing is not new.

These are the methods and corrupt practices of his political advisor and consultant Frederick Chiluba.

If Rupiah is honest with himself and others, he will not deny that he is doing this as part of his campaign strategy to win votes on the Copperbelt.

But we know Rupiah has problems telling the truth; he lives by telling lies.

What he is doing amounts to abuse of power and public resources to win himself personal votes.

But is this the way public resources should be used or abused?

We all want to see our people live well, own houses but not in a corrupt way. Everything has to be done in an honest and truthful manner.

It is clear that Rupiah doesn’t tolerate, welcome or accept criticism.

To agree with everything that he says is divine, but to disagree is hatred, feud and so on and so forth.

Look at the way Rupiah has set his minions and the state-owned media he controls on Bishop Banda for simply expressing his view on a matter of great public interest, a matter involving public assets and resources.

Rupiah wants this decision of his, this act of his to go unquestioned. Why?

This is supposed to be a democracy where citizens have the right to question the decisions and actions of those holding public office.

Every one of us has to support Rupiah, has to belong to him or be condemned. Rupiah is not even ashamed to attribute hatred or enmity where it may not exist.

In fact, Rupiah has no regard for the patriotism of his critics, probably unless they happen to die. Criticism per se is non-existent in Rupiah’s world of power. Anything else is destructive.

Opposition to Rupiah is an expression of hate, feud and not pure disagreement.

Yet it is quite true that acceptance of criticism implies the highest respect for human ideal, and that its denial suggests a conscious or unconscious lack of humanity on Rupiah’s part.

Rupiah is today, in several ways, dissuading many people from criticism. First, he makes loud pronouncements against critics and criticism – calling them all sorts of names, and accusing them of all sorts of things.

In addition to this, he resorts to unleashing his minions and cadres on his critics, harassing and intimidating them.

What is distinctly lacking in Rupiah and his minions is a culture of tolerance and humility which places the humanity of others before self and accepts that all citizens have a right to participate in the shaping of their destiny directly without fear of reprisal, harassment or intimidation.

It is negative conservatism to assume and believe that any one political party or leader can ever have the final and perpetual solution to all problems facing our country.

Such conservatism has no existential basis.

We know why Rupiah fears and hates criticism. It is simply because he thinks that honest criticism will undermine his hold on power.

And because of this, he doesn’t want to hear any such criticism.

But there can be no doubt, of course, that criticism is good for people and institutions that are part of public life.

No institution or public office should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don’t. If criticism is valid, it should be made.

Honest leaders cannot fear criticism because the truth is on their side.

It is not wise to reject criticism and opt for unprincipled peace which gives rise to nothing but a decadent, philistine attitude and brings about political degeneration.

If there are shortcomings, we shouldn’t be afraid to have them pointed out and criticised because this is in the interest of the people.

Anyone, no matter who, may point out shortcomings. If they are right, the shortcomings should be corrected.

If what is being proposed by the critic will benefit the people, it should be acted upon.

There is no need for Rupiah to take everything personal.

What is at stake here is not a personal thing or issue.

The issues under discourse are bigger than Rupiah as an individual.

Yes, Rupiah may look at things this way because to him, power is something personal, something to be enjoyed and for which he should be patronised.

What Rupiah should realise is that it is folly for anyone to personalise matters pertaining to the state apparatus.

Today more and more people are coming up to criticise him and to openly disagree with the way he is governing the affairs of our country.

Rupiah won’t be able to stop or intimidate everyone into silence or into complicity in the crimes of his league. What is happening is unstoppable and cannot be wished away.

More and more of our citizens will join the voices of Bishop Banda and others. Rupiah needs to change his ways or the Zambian people will change him.

Labels: ALICK BANDA, CATHOLIC CHURCH, PAUL DUFFY

posted by MrK @ 1:57 PM