Non-partisan royal establishments

Non-partisan royal establishments
By The Post
Thu 05 May 2011, 04:00 CAT

IT is surprising that the people who banned our traditional rulers, our chiefs from actively taking part in the politics of our country are the ones today in the forefront of asking them for endorsement in this year’s elections.

If it is wrong for traditional rulers or chiefs to contest political office in an election, it should be equally unacceptable for them to be agents of those seeking elective political office.

All that this means is that our traditional rulers have to come to terms with what it means to live in a multiparty political dispensation. And in our view, the best option is for them to take a non-partisan approach to politics and governance issues in our country. There is need for our traditional rulers to put themselves above partisan politics.

This is not to say they should have nothing to do with politics, they should not speak for their people. They have a duty to remind the government, the politicians in power to pay attention to the human needs and sufferings of their subjects. This is their responsibility, a responsibility they have to fulfil if they are to continue being relevant to the lives of their subjects. They have the duty to speak for their subjects, especially the poor and the disadvantaged.

This means that our traditional rulers will still be political, but not partisan. It is their duty to guide our politicians, especially those in government, in matters that affect the lives of their subjects. They have a duty to contribute toward the reign of justice and charity within the borders of their chiefdoms and between chiefdoms.

The choice of which political party or candidate to vote for is left to the free decision of the subjects.

Our traditional rulers have both the right and the duty to speak out on matters that affect their subjects. They have both the right and duty to participate fully in building a just and peaceful society with all the means at their disposal. A traditional authority is not fully rooted among its people if it is not concerned about their wellbeing.

Our traditional rulers should value the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of their subjects in making political choices, guaranteeing them the possibility of electing and holding accountable the politicians who govern them, and replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate. However, this does not require them to be partisan, to be agents or supporters of any political party or candidate.

Taking a partisan position threatens the respect and integrity of our traditional rulers. What should stop a subject who does not support the same political party or candidate as their chief from criticising the chief and his political choice? And what happens if the chief happens to be supporting the most unpopular party or candidate?

The end result is that the chief will alienate himself from his people. And his survival will not be based on the prestige and support he enjoys from his people but from the protection he is given by the politicians he supports.

But what type of chief will that be? It is said a chief is a chief because of the respect and support he has from people, from his subjects. A chief without subjects is not a chief. A chief who has been deserted by his people ceases to be a chief; he is as good as a dethroned chief. It’s the support of subjects and their respect that makes a chief a chief.

Partisan politics threaten all this; it has the tendency to bring the chief into conflict with his subjects. Look at the situation in Southern Province where the chiefs had been supporting MMD and Rupiah Banda while their subjects have been voting for UPND. Where does this leave the chiefs? What influence can they claim to have on their people?

What leadership can they claim to be providing to their subjects? Can they even really claim to have subjects?
If what we hear about the Barotse Royal Establishment deciding to be non-partisan is true, then they are headed for better things, for better days and for more prestige and respect among their subjects.

This is what has helped the British Monarch, the Queen of England, to continue enjoying the respect of most of the British people and their politicians. It is believed that the British royal family is much more politically inclined towards the Conservatives.

But it’s difficult to see this in their daily actions and pronouncements. They don’t seem to have any influence on who is elected to form government. The commoners elect their own governments and those governments, in turn, work with the monarch to govern the country.

It will be better for our royal establishments in Zambia to keep away from becoming election agents or servants of politicians who come and go, who win and lose elections.

Moreover, their subjects are spread across the whole political spectrum. This being the case, where do they place those who don’t support the political party or candidate they support? What type of cooperation can be there between them and their subjects who are on the other end of the political spectrum?

We know that our royal establishments are facing a lot of financial hardships because their source of income, the royalties or taxes they used to receive have been taken away from them. But the solution is not partisan politics or political patronage.

The solution lies in the enactment of a good constitution and laws that recognise and respect the role they play in the governance of our country and accordingly supporting them financially and otherwise. Again, this should not be an act of benevolence on the part of any individual politician.

It should be a product of national consensus and decision to give to the chiefs what belongs to the chiefs – it is simply a question of giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and not making Caesar beg or play servitude over what belongs to him.

The decision we should make is whether or not we need all these royal establishments in our country. If we need them, they have to be supported financially and otherwise in a dignified manner. If we don’t need them, let’s say so and do away with them.

There are countries that have abolished monarchs. But we have also seen countries which are reinstating the monarchs they had abolished. The choice is ours. But there are always better ways of doing things and let’s do it the best way, whatever effort this demands or calls for.
We have to take responsibility as a people for the type of traditional rulers or chiefs we have.

Since we are the ones who make them chiefs, we should be responsible for what type of chiefs we have. We should take responsibility for the type of traditional leadership we are creating in this country. In the end, what we get is the type of traditional rulers or chiefs we deserve.