Shortly after 0032 HRS on the 23rd of September, Zimbabwe’s neighbor to the North, Zambia erupted into tumultuous celebrations over the announcement of the results of the Presidential election that had taken place on the 20th as part of their tripartite elections. The celebrations, far from being from members of the Patriotic Front only, who had won the Presidency, making Michael Chilufiya Sata the 5th President of post independence Zambia, and judging by the multitudes of people who stormed into the streets in their bed clothes to celebrate. The celebrations were those of a nation, saluting itself for maturing its democracy and enhancing the culture of change. The celebrations were of a nation staying true to the founding principles of democratic governance, where the authority and right to govern is determined by the collective will of the people as expressed through elections. As Zimbabweans, we can only look to the north with envy and guilt. Envy, because the pleasure of having power change hands with limited incidence in post independent Zimbabwe is a pleasure that we are yet to have. And guilt, because we have no one to blame but ourselves for our desperate situation which has seen democratic regression instead of the democratic rebirth that Zambia and our brothers and sisters in North Africa have achieved.
The developments in Zambia are for Zimbabwe, pregnant with lessons for both the citizens and those who govern them. For those in power, the lesson from Zambia is not only that, incumbents can be defeated but also that, when they do they should bow out graciously. The Zambian election outcome was a victory for the peoples will and shows that real power resides on the streets where the people live. The resolve shown by the people of Zambia in enhancing their democracy through change of government is worthy of salute, and inspite of the skills that the Sata and the PF party possessed, the Zambian people are the real victors of this election. To the majority of them, it was not just about Banda and Sata and deciding who was the better man, it was also about the fact that with 20 years of occupying the state, the majority of people felt that this long incumbency needed to be brought to an end.
Having said that, it is also proper to appreciate that Rupiah Banda and the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy ( MMD) deserve the thanks of not just their nation, but the entire African Continent, for the lesson on respecting the will of the people. There are few things easier than trying to unseat an incumbent President on the African continent. 20 years in power is a long time, but Banda and his colleagues, still left when the people decided to call time on them. Zambians are generally of a good temperament, being a Christian nation, but the incumbent chose not to test the patience of the people for much longer than was necessary. This is the second time that Zambia has demonstrated this lesson, after calling time on Dr. Kenneth Kaunda in 1991, and refusing Chilumba an extension to his tenure as President after two terms in 2001. Given what have seen in the recent past in Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia and other place, the events in Zambia, are clearly not common place on the continent, and do serve as a good example of a good example. Signs which had manifested themselves in protests and scenes of violence especially in the copper belt, were also ample evidence that while willing to follow the process, the people of Zambia would not stand by as their vote was made not to count. And therein lies the another lesson.
Not that people should be violent, but rather that people have to be vigilant. The opposition and ordinary members of the public in Zambia kept a keen eye on the process and vented whenever there were indications that something was amiss. Ample examples of this vigilance exists from the election. On Election Day, when a polling station in Kanyama constituency in Lusaka, received its election materials late leading to suspicions that the ballots were pre-marked. This turned out not to be the case, but the late consequences were that even the risk of this was averted as balloting did not take place at this station. On the 22nd, after a long silence of about 7 hours with no word from the Electoral Commission of Zambia, again this vigilance was displayed through street action in Kitwe, Mazabuka, Ndola Mansa, Barotseland and other areas in the Copper belt as well as sections of Lusaka, on the back of demands for the immediate release of the results. This vigilance, though characterized by some elements of regrettable violence, no doubt assisted in protecting the peoples vote, and alerting any one with intentions of manipulating the process, that this time the people were watching, with the clear intention of making every vote count.
But before the vote can even be protected, people first have to vote. The last Zambian elections voter turnout figures were not off the charts, but in terms of registration, they did manage to rise by over a million new voters. Those of the million, who made it to the polling stations no doubt assisted in the result that has been dubbed the peoples victory. Participatory democracy is about exactly that, participation. One cannot reap where they did not sow, or expect to celebrate victory in a race that they didn’t run. By the time of declaration of the result by the ECZ chairperson Judge Mambilima, and announcement that Sata was the President elect by the Chief Justice of Zambia Justice Sakala, Sata had an unassailable lead of over 180 000 votes with 7 constituencies still to be counted. The clear lessons in this case are that, in order to change governing authorities there is no substitute to getting out the vote, and also that in mitigating attempts to rig elections there is no substitute for getting out the vote.
Our own electoral commission has lessons to learn from the Zambia election as well. Outside of various logistical challenges and the slight delays in announcing the results. The Electoral Commission of Zambia conducted its work in a largely transparent manner, and the election was not treated as private party, where only friends are invited. The election was observed by observer missions from across the globe. Local civic society was allowed not to observe the elections, but to monitor it, and the ECZ was able to deliver the final result, just over the ambitious target of doing so within 48 hours that the they had set for themselves and had no legal obligation to abide by. The independence of the commission, which a lot of people doubted was in evidence throughout the process, with feel good stories doing the rounds around how the chairperson had refused to design a voter registration process that favored the MMD even after being offered money for the exercise.
The just ended elections in Zambia, took place just 3 years after the last which had been necessitated by the unfortunate passing on of President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa. Michael Sata ran in those elections, and lost to Rupiah Banda. The margins of improvement by Sata in areas that he carried in those elections, and even more importantly, in areas that President Banda and the MMD considered strong holds, sowed that he and the Patriotic front did not sit on them laurels and resign to their fate. They kept working, knowing that an election would soon be upon them and that to make sense of it, they needed to master “take over” politics. This is a lesson that should not be missed by political parties aspiring to take over the state in Zimbabwe, though based on current form of some parties especially those parties in the GNU, this might already be lost on them. The lesson from the PF victory in Zambia shows that politics also follows the law of the farm, you harvest what you plant, or as Tendai Biti puts it, you eat what you gather or kill. If you gather nothing, you eat nothing.
In the final analysis, it fair to say that Banda was well and truly beaten. He was defeated but certainly not disgraced. Other incumbents need to be able to learn from this episode. Banda, in spite of the enduring the mocking that he will receive for a week or two over the loss, and the uncomfortable exercise of having to resettle his young wife, from Plot number 1, perhaps to their old farm. There is no doubt that through the mere act of accepting defeat and agreeing to leave the state, he has joined an elite and rare class of leaders on the continent. If there was any fairness in the world, he would be a prime candidate for the Mo Ibrahim Democracy prize. Outside the positive legacy of Banda the individual, Zambia, claims its place as an consolidating democracy, and joins the elite ranks of countries such as Ghana on how to conduct credible elections and agree to ceed power where this is called for.
As Zimbabweans, we can only pray that these lessons are not lost on us, and that our hardships have not made us immune to inspiration.
No comments:
Post a Comment