Maravi

We are not above criticism

We are not above criticism
By The Post
Sun 17 June 2012, 13:25 CAT

WE have consistently maintained that if criticism is valid, it must be made. And this applies to us as it applies to all others. We are not exempt from this standard. If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid to have them pointed out and criticised, because we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who, may point out our shortcomings. If he or she is right, we'll correct them. If what he or she proposes will benefit the people, we will act upon it.

It is in this same spirit that we approach the criticisms we make of others, including the UPND and its leadership. There is nothing personal about it. In criticising them, we are simply carrying out our duty. And they are equally entitled to criticise us. And if the radio programmes they intend to carryout are aimed at truthfully exposing our errors, mistakes, deficiencies and shortcomings, they are highly welcome.

We do not fear criticism because the truth is on our side. In fact, we ourselves are very critical about our own work. We every day start our work by examining what we did the previous day and whether we were right or wrong.

Conscientious practice of self-criticism is still another hallmark distinguishing us from others in this business. We have developed a style of work that fears neither criticism nor self-criticism. We base all our actions on the highest interests of the broad masses of our people and we are fully convinced of the justice of our cause.

And as such we can never balk at any personal sacrifices and we are ready at all times to give everything we have to the cause of our people. This being the case, we can never be reluctant to discard any idea, viewpoint, opinion, practice or method which is not suited to the needs of our people.

We have never accepted complacency. We believe in checking complacency and in constantly criticising our shortcomings. Taught by mistakes and setbacks, we have become wiser and handle our affairs better. However, it is hard for anyone to avoid mistakes, but we should make as few as possible. Once a mistake is made, we should correct it, and the more quickly and thoroughly, the better.

We have taught ourselves to avoid being opinionated or domineering, thinking that we are good in everything while others are good in nothing; we have taught ourselves never to shut ourselves up in our little rooms, or brag and boast and lord it over others. We have also learnt to listen attentively to the views of other people and let them have their say.

If what they say is right, we have learnt to welcome it and learn from their strong points; if it is wrong, we have learnt to let them finish what they are saying and then patiently explain things to them. Our attitude towards any person who has made mistakes in his work has been one of persuasion in order to help him change and start afresh and not one of exclusion, unless he is incorrigible.

As for people who are politically backward, we have learnt not to slight or despise them but to befriend them, unite with them, convince them and encourage them to go forward. We haven't always acted wisely, we haven't always made the best decisions.

But we have certainly always been able, with all the honesty in the world, to detect in time any error, any mistake, any wrong decision, recognise it, rectify it, and carry on; because even when you travel through the mountains with the help of a campus - and our campus is honesty, our campus is integrity - from time-to-time, there can be some drifting away from the right path - just as ships sailing on the ocean occasionally drift off course a little - but you always keep on going ahead in the right direction.

We can assert above all else that we have been capable of rectifying mistakes and today our newspaper is stronger and more solid than ever before.

These are not mere words. The Zambian people know very well what The Post has been able to do, to accomplish in our country. We have learnt to manage our affairs better and with increasing efficiency; but the most important thing is that we will keep on learning more and more.

Our ideas are very clear, our convictions are very deep, our decisions are very resolute: we don't want unnecessary conflicts, personalised conflicts with anyone. We are not in the habit of provoking conflicts and we don't want to do so, but those wanting to provoke us, those intending to provoke us should beware of provoking us! They should beware of dragging us into a sterile conflict! If they impose a conflict on us, they will find out what a resolute newspaper we are. This is because life has taught us to be very sure of our ideas and of our cause.

We have a lot of dignity and are very sure of ourselves. Others may be used to trembling before political threats, but not us. Never! If what Hakainde Hichilema and his UPND want is to expose, criticise and denounce our weaknesses, our errors, our deficiencies in an honest way, we highly welcome that and we will pay maximum attention to everything they are saying.

However, if their intention is to defame us, slander us, scandalise us, attempt to humiliate us, then they will soon know what we are made of and what experience has moulded us to be.

We sincerely believe that every man or woman has an undaunted right to lay what sentiments they please before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of expression; but if they say things that are improper, mischievous or illegal, then they must take the consequences of their own temerity. Of course, we appreciate the fact that the right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

In whatever criticism we have subjected Hakainde and UPND to, if there is anything that is defamatory, that is libellous, we beg them to exercise their legal rights and sue us. If they have a point that is beyond dispute, we will not waste their time to go to court, we will amicably settle the matter out of court and pay the necessary compensation or damages.

Equally, if in their radio programmes they will say anything that is slanderous of us, they should expect the same: we will sue them and the radio stations they are using for defamation, slander. This is a legal right we share with them and with all other citizens or human beings. We have no right to defame them and equally they have no right to slander us.

And as we have stated before, we sincerely believe that no section of the community has all the virtues, neither does any have all the vices. We are quite sure that most people try to do their jobs as best as they can, even if the result is not always entirely successful.

He who has never failed to reach perfection has a right to be the harshest critic. There can be no doubt, of course, that criticism is good for people and institutions that are part of public life. No institution, whatever, should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don't.

But we are all part of the same fabric of our national society and that scrutiny, by one part of another, can be just as effective if it is done in an honest way and with the best of intentions, and not malice.
We don't believe in the law of hate. We may not be true to our ideals always, but we believe in the law of love, and we believe one can do nothing with hatred.

And as we have stated before, there are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave ills, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or businessman, lawyer or judge, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business or in social life - provided always that this is done with absolute truthfulness.

The liar is no whit better than the thief, and if his mendacity takes the form of slander, he may be worse than most thieves. It puts a premium upon knavery untruthfully to attack an honest man, or even with hysterical exaggeration to assail a bad man with untruth. An epidemic of indiscriminate assault upon character does no good, but very great harm.

The soul of every scoundrel is gladdened whenever an honest man is assailed, or even when a scoundrel is untruthfully assailed. Our plea is, not for immunity but for the most unsparing exposure of the politician who betrays his trust, of the businessman who makes or spends his fortune in illegitimate or corrupt ways.

There should be a resolute effort to hunt every such man out of the position he has disgraced. Expose the crime, and hunt down the criminal; but remember that even in the case of crime, if it is attacked in sensational, lurid, and untruthful fashion, the attack may do more damage to the public mind than the crime itself.

It is because we feel that there should be no rest in the endless war against the forces of evil that we ask that the war be conducted with sanity as well as with resolution.

We have adopted, more or less, this approach in our criticism of Hakainde and his UPND, and indeed of all other people and institutions we have criticised. Sometime last year, we used to criticise Hakainde's approach to his party's pact with the PF.

We told them that if their request for a pact with PF was with the intention to make Hakainde president, then they were wasting their time because it won't happen. We told them that there was no foundation on which they could base such a claim as Michael Sata and the PF have over the last few years been doing better than Hakainde and UPND.

The response of Hakainde and his friends was that things have changed, that was history, and the political landscape had changed in their favour. They claimed to be more popular than Michael and PF in Lusaka, the Copperbelt, Eastern, Central, Western, North Western and Southern provinces.

They also claimed that even in Luapula, Michael's fortunes had declined because of Frederick Chiluba's support for Rupiah Banda. They only left Northern Province for Michael and the PF. We told them their analysis was wrong, was baseless, was untrue.

And it was this attitude of theirs, this failure to understand the true position of the politics of our country that led them into believing things that were not correct and consequently acting wrongly.

They were convinced that neither themselves nor the PF could win the election on their own. Hakainde even accused us of misleading Michael that he could win the election on his own.

Michael won on his own. And we can say we were not malicious or discriminatory in our reading of the politics of our country. They got it wrong, we got it right. And for this, they have never forgiven us. Telling them the truth was a crime.

Even some of the parliamentary by-elections they won as a result of their pact with PF, they lost them after the pact ended. Who was deceiving who? Hakainde was deceiving himself, those around him and indeed the whole nation. Where has that deception left him? It has left him in bitterness, confusion and political limbo.

But it's a lesson that no matter how hard its adversary - falsehood - may try to overwhelm it, truth refuses to yield. And we hope that one day Hakainde and his friends will learn the value of being truthful and of listening to the advice, opinions and views of others without being excessively defensive and looking at everything from a regional or tribal point of view.

Labels: FRED M'MEMBE, UPND

posted by MrK @ 2:16 PM