Lungu’s accidental presidency and the failed Zambian experiment at democracy

Edgar Lungu

By Anonymous Doctoral Student

The World Bank and International Country Risk Guide provide indices and components that gauge the political risk of a country. Such indices include quality of democracy—by which it means institutional strength. By quality of bureaucracy, the World Bank means the regime’s ability to govern without drastic policy changes or interruption of government services. Responsiveness of the government to its people as another index means that the less responsive the government to its people, the more likely it is to fall—and I argue, the more likely it is for the state to fail. By voice and accountability, the key measures include various political, civil and human rights such as the extent to which the citizen of a country are able to participate in the selection of government and the independence of the media. By these indices, Mr. Lungu’s reign of more than 19 months is increasingly becoming a political risk to Zambia. Zambians must therefore seriously reflect about his reign, and therefore continue to challenge his governance record as some of his political opponents are currently doing. Even without a World Bank country risk guide, many fair-minded Zambians deeply in love with their country now believe that Mr. Lungu’s strategic responses to unfolding post-election events increasingly confirm that he is a distinctively unqualified individual to steer the ship of the state.

According to this line of criticism, his accidental presidency, and his party’s patently open indulgence in electoral fraud —which yielded judicial outcomes of lasting precedent and consequences for Zambia’s posterity—is draining the little that is left of a Zambia democracy and Mr. Lungu’s political legitimacy. Critics also add that Mr. Lungu is an experiment that Zambians should not have started in the first place, pointing to his loss of control of his political cadres. In fact, some independent observers argue that his political cadres are in fact the ones in charge of Zambia, with Mr. Lungu only providing token cover. If the little of the media accounts that are left are correct, these either misguided or unguided PF cadres are conducting daily dosages of lawlessness the intention of which is to discredit the opposition—which in this case is the UPND and the person of Hakainde Hichilema. Consider the alleged disorder and lawlessness in Southern Province, in Namwala. The remnants of independent media, the traditional chiefs—and Dr Nevers Mumba—debunked the apparently inaccurate news of disorder in Southern province. The pictures of mayhem have turned out to be PF’s failed adventure at propaganda or indeed a symptom of a failing state unable to superintend the state. PF is using isolated incidents of a few criminals as broad brush for alleging “ethnic cleansing” in the South. Why should politicians seek political capital out of a political mole of a few criminals?

Mr. Lungu and his PF party through a tragicomedy of outright blunders and misinformed strategic political choices are threatening to undo all Zambia’s hitherto hard-earned peace. To the extent that he took a self-imposed “vacation” to Mfuwe to “reflect” on the matters of the state, Mr. Lungu’s trip was a failure of leadership because his “vacation” yielded the unnecessary “ministry of religious affairs.” While there is no doubt that religion can shape faith, morality, and broaden knowledge, and is necessary for good government and even cause happiness in mankind, religion can also be a tool of political patronage as seems the case with Mr. Lungu. His calculation in creating the ministry of religious affairs was to signal to the broader Zambian public his supposed piousness in the conduct of political affairs. Perhaps, it was also to provide a convenient veil for shoring up his “religious” credentials in the estimation of those who question the clearly ungodly conduct of his recently concluded “selection” as “president of Zambia.” But we must be wary of the potential of politicians to abuse and misuse religion.

Zambians know too well the uncomfortable edicts of dictatorial regimes with theocratic underpinnings. See Ayatollahs in Iran. The Mullahs in Afghanistan, and how even among the so-called conservative right in America, religion has become a tool for promoting hatred against people who believe, love, and operate differently. Faith does not entail the drafting of a contract or legislating for the ministry of religious affairs. It borders sacrilege when a politician institutionalizes a personal matter between the Divine and His children. Some Zambians are smart enough to argue that any politician worth his salt should not take a taxpayer-funded trip to diagnose Zambia’s increasingly serious and rapidly mounting problems, and return with a supposedly one panacea: a “religious solution.”

Mr. Lungu’s half-baked politics of calling names and assigning blame on the opposition could unstitch the political gossamers of a once a diverse, united and peaceful country. The founding father of the nation, Kenneth Kaunda and many others must be in deep wonder and agony at how one individual’s insatiable appetite for power disregard history and so nurture conditions that destroy a nation in a heartbeat. Indeed, each subsequent president since KK except Mr. Lungu has contributed to imbuing a deeper meaning of KK’s slogan of One Nation One Zambia. At the heart of this slogan was KK’s 1964 independence call that challenged all Zambians to form a shared destiny, purpose and identity as an independent Zambia from among disparate ethnic groups, without regard to one’s geography as Lamba, Bemba, Lozi, Tonga, Ngoni, Lunda and so on. No easy word in Zambia translates into “tribe.” Yet PF under Lungu are desperately seeking “tribe” in their ruinous efforts at creating disunity in this country. The PF are using the One Zambia One Nation slogan for a self-serving lip purpose. It is to prevent serious Zambians from debating PF performance and behaviour under Mr. Lungu and how that negates, abuses and misuses the otherwise rich content of One Nation One Zambia Slogan. In fact to some extent One Nation One Zambia slogan is similar to American’s motto, “E pluribus Unum” which means “Out of many, one” or alternately translated, ” From Many, One”.

Zambia is itself an amalgam of many groups with some Zambians’ DNA representative of more than one Zambian group. For most Zambians, home is any geographic entity within Zambia. Zambians do not tether themselves to certain ethnic boundaries. Where KK sought to bond Zambians, Mr. Lungu seeks to unravel them through nurturing internal “borders” within Zambia. While KK sought equality among citizen, Mr. Lungu agenda is seemingly to create self-serving political schism among them.

There is a fad of mediocrity and maddening cult of ignorance taking root in Zambia. It seems to have matured to full bloom under Mr. Lungu. The strain of anti-intellectualism, the allergy towards proven professionalism, and the trait of affirming the status quo as normal and acceptable is a river that has recently been meandering its way through the filthy compounds of this country. It then carries its filthy sediments to the lagoon of shadowy political and professional “elites” whose dredges are failed priests, doctoral imposters, tenderpreneurs, questionable men of God, some professionals and law enforcement misfits. These arrogant and ignorant “PFnites” defend the notion that democracy means that mediocrity and ignorance is just as equivalent as professionalism and knowledge. Lawlessness is just as equivalent as protesting for rights under the Constitution. How in God’s name is “Dununa Reverse” equivalent to “Dununa Forward”? Why do some Zambians—who experience the maximum of poverty and squalor—now celebrate and defend backwardness when instead they should feel shame, dishonor and bemoan it under a regime that is clearly clueless to address serious problems besetting the country? And why would even some professionals considered liberated from ignorance still embrace the virus of tribalism when they should be concerned about merit?

Almost all of Mr. Lungu’s past—the failed odyssey at legal practice, and the machinations that led to him oust Mr. Miles Sampa from the party leadership contest in Kabwe were all pointers to an ominous future that most Zambians overlooked, failed to recognize and reluctantly gave a benefit of doubt. That future is now upon us. Zambians are now paying for such serious oversights and missed opportunities for in-depth insight that now manifest themselves in Lungu’s toddle efforts at the presidency, and Zambia’s deleted future.

In many failed states—such as Zimbabwe, Somalia, Yemen, Swaziland, Uganda, Central African Republic, Gabon or states now at risk of failing such as Zambia—the exercise of public power for private gain as well as petty and grand corruption and state capture is very real. In other words, in Zambia today, there are indicators that the Patriotic Front—which abundant evidence now points is neither patriotic nor a front for good governance values—may now be a party in chains of shadowy forces mismanaging the affairs of the state. The audio recording between Minister Alexander Chikwanda and PF Secretary General Davies Chama agreeing to divert public funds to PF from the treasury for political activities provides perhaps the only publicly available support for this contention of state mismanagement. According to that thesis, Mr. Lungu lacks the political will—or finds it not in his self-interest—to control the confluence of evil forces of bad governance and corruption. In declaring his personal assets, for example, Mr. Lungu listed unexplained personal treasures of millions of Kwacha. Neither Mr. Lungu nor his largely misinformed—or accurately, uninformed—supporters have provided answers about Lungu’s declared wealth.

Shockingly, it was not a campaign issue. Even among his ill-informed pyschophants and political base that loudly parrot his supposed “humility,” no explanation has been forthcoming about Mr. Lungu’s treasure. Detailed analysis or reporting on perhaps his undeclared wealth have all but fizzled because Mr. Lungu and his PF have manipulated organs of the state (such as Independent Broadcasting Authority) to stifle, and to close no nonsense media outlets such as Post Newspaper . The “Independent” in Broadcasting Authority is a mockery of our intelligence. The ZNBC, Times of Zambia and Daily Mail outlets that should be questioning Mr. Lungu about his governance record or investigating voter fraud are drawing salaries on the backs of the very people Mr. Lungu disenfranchised. These media outlets are a stench of disgraceful journalism.

Questions remain unanswered about the source of Mr. Lungu’s wealth. Mr. Lungu himself does not indicate the source of his new found wealth. He has no known business sources, which could lead to this sudden wealth. How HH and GBM made, and making their wealth is in public domain. Nein for Mr. Lungu. The still giant question is: from which source or sources did Mr. Lungu amass this wealth if not because of the influence and unknown connections of the presidency. Given his continuing silence on this matter—or the absence of any more serious journalists in this country than, arguably, those in the independent media outlets such as the Post Newspaper, it is only reasonable to assume that there are aspects of Mr. Lungu’s wealth-making even more ignominious than what Zambians know.

These questions go to the heart of transparency and accountability—the cornerstone of good governance and a stable state. In addition, most of the failed or failing states also began with deteriorating transparency and accountability.

Mr. Lungu could cure his lack of governance experience in dealing with serious political issues if he recognized it as a deficiency worth surmounting. However, according to those within his “inner” circle, Mr. Lungu exhibits no interest in policy in all of its stripes and, no one knows if he reads policy papers or their quality given the absence of notable and credible professionals around him. Most Zambians know that he leans on characters such as failed priests, self-styled intellectuals with laughable labels of “Doctors” and self-seeking individuals whose governance policy credentials are either non-existent or suspect. In fact, what makes Mr. Lungu so troubling and unusual is his blend of supposed (accurately phony) humility and seeming ignorance. Both traits seem to mask and re-inforce each other, setting for a dangerous Zambian future. He and his PF party are desperate for legitimization yet contemptuous of his political opponents and those with contrary views.

It is difficult if not impossible for the opposition to hold discourse on substantive matters of the state in such circumstances or with such an individual amidst clueless characters and “advisors.” Such a discourse—if it occurred—is important because it engenders a contest of ideas that build trust, respect for each other, and reinforce democracy. In other words, with the current governance architecture and political trajectory that Mr. Lungu has chosen—and which judicial authorities seem unable to cure—there is now a very real risk that Zambia is on the path to becoming a failed state, and an economic basket case.

Most alarming is Mr. Lungu’s ignorance of the Constitution and the democratic norms that undergird it such as respect for the rule of law, and an independent judicial system untethered to any individual, private or public. We hold collective opprobrium against those who threaten Judges as the Law Association of Zambia pointed out in one of recent press releases. The Zambian Constitutional life depends of the sanctity and independence of the judiciary, which in turn has the potential to bring the executive back on track to good governance trajectory. Put differently, the judiciary could consign Zambia to a path of no return to a perilous and hopeless future, which indefinitely disregards the rule of law—the embodiment of the will of the people and the voice of God. The Judiciary could also unwittingly add to the fodder of those of who fervently believe that Africa is a symbol of failure, despair and clueless collection of human beings of Nazareth—“of whom nothing good can emanate.”

Most unnerving is also the fact that Mr. Lungu seemingly does not care about supposed limitations on executive power. This is the case given the ease with which he directs the “law enforcement” and the threats he issues to those with contrary political views. In fact, the current Zambian Constitution and arguably most Constitutions in Africa, unfortunately enable the incumbent to potentially abuse and misuse of the Constitution. The President is immune to civil and criminal proceedings whilst serving as president and thereafter. This should not be the stance as cases abound where the incumbent has had to stoop before the law.

In the Zambian case, “if after serving as President, need arose to lift the immunity, this can only be done by Parliament in accordance with Article 98 (8)”. The trouble with section is that the nation can potentially be hostage to the incumbent if his party is the majority in parliament. In these backward societies, even the judiciary that is supposed to right the crimes of the incumbent is impotent in doing so. Their survival depends on the incumbent and his goons. The incumbent can close a news media outlet, harass, and kill off opponents without consequences. Many of these brutes and political thugs have gone to their graves with a deficit of justice for those victims who survive them. The solutions to the serious political quagmire and bad governance that Zambia finds itself in are easy. They require genuine dialogue and a collective aspiration for a just and prosperous future for all. The dialogue is nothing—as far as available public information leads us to believe—about forming government of national unity. And it should not be. It must not be. The PF coterie of incompetents and thugs are as different from the broader opposition as chalk is from cheese.

The dialogue should be about what the opposition could contribute alongside the input of well-meaning Zambians such as the Church, civil society and Law Association of Zambia regarding the rule of law and a broad based agreement on the way forward to Zambia’s threatened future. After all, many fair-minded Zambians know that one party is clueless about matters of the state, and the opposition—most of it, want to put the country on the right track and restrain it from falling off the cliff. Mr. Lungu’s posture as an incompetent leader or a leader in incompetence, and the PF’s rising affinity for disrespect of the rule of law and good governance has sent the nation on edge. The legislature and the Judiciary exist for nothing. Mr. Hichilema and the UPND—and all the opposition–have their own particular weaknesses as well. It is arguable that Mr. Hichilema or other opposition leaders represent an affront to the rule of law or even a political risk to Zambia and its Constitution as does Mr. Lungu. His accidental presidency both in January 2015 and now affirmed in a patently fraudulent August 2016 election—absent a path correction—is a unique and present danger. The founding creed of One Zambia One Nation is now tasteless, meaningless and purposeless. Tom Stoppard was actually right; “It is not the voting that is democracy. It is the counting.” The PF and Mr. Lungu just proved him right. Mr. Lungu’s accidental presidency is now a giant failed experiment at democracy. Zambia is now on the precipice. In God’s hands, we must now squarely place her.