Maravi

UPND's declining political fortunes

UPND's declining political fortunes
By The Post
Thu 21 June 2012, 13:25 CAT

TO begin with, we would like to refer to a saying of Lenin, that the attitude - that is to say, the seriousness of purpose - of a political party is measured, basically, by the attitude it takes toward its own weaknesses, errors, problems.

And in the same way, the seriousness of purpose of our political parties and their leaders should be measured by the attitude they take toward their weaknesses, errors, problems. It is easier to correct weaknesses that have been acknowledged or accepted as such.

It is not easy to correct weaknesses, errors that have not been accepted or acknowledged. That's why it is very important for all our politicians and their political parties to take a forthright and serious attitude toward their weaknesses, errors, problems.

In this regard, we have been analysing the performance of our political parties and their key leaders over the last 10 years or so. We have gone as far back as the 2001 elections. In the 2001 general elections, Levy Mwanawasa of the MMD won the election with 28.69 per cent and behind him was Anderson Mazoka of UPND with 26.76 per cent (a difference of 1.93 per cent).

UPND and Andy were new to Zambian politics and had only been campaigning for three years. Levy and the MMD were not new, they had been in power since 1991. And Levy was a former vice-president of the Republic and the MMD itself. But he only managed to defeat Andy by only 1.93 per cent. Levy had polled 506,694 votes while Andy had 472,697.

In this election Michael Sata, who had registered his political party less than six months before the elections, got 3.35 per cent of the votes cast.
In the 2006 general elections, Levy won with 42.98 per cent with Michael now in the second place with 29.37 per cent. In third position was Hakainde Hichilema representing UDA, an alliance of UNIP, FDD and the UPND itself.

In the 2008 presidential by-election that followed the death of Levy, Rupiah Banda of the MMD won with 40.09 per cent, with Michael obtaining 38.13 per cent (a difference of 1.96 per cent). In third place was Hakainde, now under the exclusive ticket of UPND, with 19.70 per cent (a drop of 5.62 per cent from his 2006 performance). And in the 2011 general elections, Michael won with 41.98 per cent, with Rupiah scoring 35.42 per cent while Hakainde dropped further to 18.17 per cent.

It is clear from these results that Hakainde and the UPND have been experiencing declining political fortunes over the last 10 years. Hakainde's performance in general elections has not been improving, it has been going down. While Andy took UPND to higher heights in a very short time, Hakainde has taken it down in an equally short time. Hakainde's share of the votes has been continually dropping (25.32 per cent in 2006; 19.70 per cent in 2008 and 18.17 per cent in 2011).

This decline in Hakainde's electoral performance calls for sober, honest and deep analysis. The members and leaders of UPND, if they are serious, need to meditate deeply over these results. But this is not the only area where the performance of UPND has been going down.

In 2001, UPND had 49 members of parliament which has since dropped to 22 (in 2006) and 29 (in 2011). And there are no prospects for UPND returning to not less than 49 seats they won in 2001. This is a serious quantitative decline in the party's electoral performance. But there is also a qualitative decline of the party.

In 2001, UPND could boast of having the most educated, the highest calibre of members of parliament. But this is no longer the case. Under Hakainde, the quality of UPND's members of parliament has gone down. Today, 17 per cent of UPND's members of parliament have not gone beyond form five or grade 12. And only 28 per cent have university degrees.

Contrast this with MMD that has only 11 per cent of its members of parliament with not more than form five or grade 12, and 48 per cent university graduates. The PF also has only 10 per cent of its members of parliament who have not gone beyond form five or grade 12 and has 44 per cent university graduates.

Today, UPND cannot truthfully boast of having the most educated politicians. But they still want to believe that they are the best in everything! How?
The data we have used in these analyses is obtained from the Electoral Commission of Zambia election results and the information submitted to Parliament by the members of parliament themselves. We have not directly generated any of this data.

And the question is, where does UPND's superiority lie? We are making this analysis not to bring down the standing of UPND and not to undermine anyone. What spirit moves us to make this analysis? Do we do this to bring about a change of opinion, to create an unfavourable opinion in regard to UPND and its leaders? No, never.

On the contrary, we do not want to expose anyone to scorn to which dishonest, incorrect assumptions will expose them.
We make this analysis simply to try and help UPND and Hakainde overcome their weaknesses by proceeding from correct premises so that they can eventually free themselves from their weaknesses, errors and problems.

We believe this may help strengthen UPND as a political party which values itself at its correct worth. Correcting their weaknesses, errors will give them some prestige. It will give them all the strength which organisations have when they know how to purify themselves of weaknesses, when they know how to correct their errors, when they know how to overcome their difficulties.

This is not a product of hatred for UPND and Hakainde. These are irrefutable facts that exist independent of our opinions or views about UPND and Hakainde. A comprehensive approach is required to reverse UPND's continued declining political fortunes.

The trends which serve as the basis for the sombre immediate outlook for UPND and its leaders are the most obvious expressions of the weaknesses that prevail in this political party and its leadership today. But they are not necessarily inexorable. The leadership and membership of UPND can, if they really want, act to change this unpleasant performance for one that is bright and desirable. The choice is theirs.

But as long as these weaknesses, these errors, these problems are not seriously attended to; as long as the leadership of UPND is in constant denial, in wanting to be what it is not, little will be achieved in improving their party's political performance. It is clear that for some, their aspirations clash with lack of understanding, arrogance and selfishness.

Labels: DEATH THREATS, DOUGLAS SYAKALIMA, HAKAINDE HICHILEMA, THE POST, UPND

posted by MrK @ 4:24 PM