UNIP fifth edition

By John Mukela

One day in conversation with my friend and elder brother, the late Gilbert Mudenda, he remarked that the then governing Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD), and the subsequent political parties that were to come after it, were all “new editions of UNIP”.

His argument was that even though UNIP was no longer in power, this did not detract from its embodiment in what came afterwards – which is to say, MMD, PF and currently UPND.

In other words, like it or not, UNIP’s DNA is well entrenched, and will continue to be thus entrenched till Kingdom come.

Or will it?

In my view, well, yes and no.

But unfortunately, a systematic analysis of this argument, given the confined limits of this very short piece, is obviously impossible.

What I can say however, without appearing to contradict myself, is that the general thrust of Gilbert Mudenda’s thesis might call for us to seriously re-examine our entire governance in a mature manner, devoid of emotion or drama.

I am driven to reminisce on this as a result of my remote observations, from the side-lines, of our current political season in the run-up to the August elections.

And what am I seeing?

Well, I think I see an old script of a classic theatrical play, with its unchanging set of familiar props, lighting and scenery with a never-ending cast of both new and recycled actors.

I also see a contemporary crisis rooted in our old colonial structures whose roots are still well-entrenched.

First, there is the argument, which still holds true, that when colonialists transferred Western models of state organisation to Africa, the result was an alien weak state with a weak or non-existent foundation.

Our multi-ethnic composition as a state, further exacerbates this reality and unfortunately always becomes a problem sharpened at the edges during election time.

In many respects, most academic research and analyses still frame this multi-ethnicity through what I will call “anthropological lenses” – where much emphasis is championed and placed on linguistic and ethnic divisions.

I think this is wrong because in one sense, what is usually labelled ethnicity or tribalism is really the same thing as nationalism, which is a more palatable description.

For arguments’ sake, the rivalries of for example, ethnic group A and ethnic group B in Zambia are essentially part of the same story as the divisions between say, the Flemings and the Walloons in Belgium or the French and English in Canada.

But in Belgium and Canada, these differences are not reduced to tribal simplicity, chaos or primitiveness, as is done to our differences here in Zambia.

In Belgium it is nationalism, and here it is tribalism.

A sense of cultural uniqueness and a determination to guard mutual interests is the essence of both nationalism and ethnicity.

But this uniqueness etc only becomes politically salient, loud and disruptive when aggravated by uneven development, political competition and the self-serving tactics and corruption of ambitious politicians.

Then there is the perennial drama of political party-switching.

In that sense, going by the party-switching and hopping that we have seen in the past and continue to see today, UNIP second edition (MMD) could be argued to be the same as UNIP third edition (PF) which was the same as UNIP fourth edition (UPND).

That is why at every turn and at every successive political transition in Zambia, the new incoming political party has faced two dilemmas.

The first is the need and necessity to carry along with it, old and heavy political baggage.

Second is the burden of having to always start governing from an empty reservoir of governance experience.

So, at every political change, the country has endured with learner driver political leadership, because limited political continuity at the organisational level has occurred in all of our transitions.

Some have learned the national leadership ropes fast, while others have faltered.

Hakainde Hichilema can be counted as belonging to the former, given his government’s navigation of the debt and drought crises, and other developmental achievements of his administration, such as free education, increases in CDF, revitalisation of mining and industry, etc.

But, the demise of former ruling parties robs us of much-needed continuity and in turn reduces our political institutions to seasonal clubs that wither away at the slightest gust of turbulent political wind.

What Zambia needs are robust political parties that can endure, come rain or shine, if the country is to gather true momentum and political maturity.

Zambia does not need circus political jokers and chancers.

But how if it were to occur, would a prolonged and robust political competition between say, two dominant political parties, change the picture?

My guess is that not much will change if political elites will still benefit more than the rank and file voting majority who will continue to get crumbs off the governance table.

What we need more of from politics are tangible solutions for poverty alleviation and the provision of basic human needs for the people, not predatory self-seeking party-hopping politicians with their eyes firmly glued on the closing balance of their bank accounts.

Breaking the cycle of more UNIP political party editions will be difficult because it requires the emergence of robust political parties with firm institutional foundations.

Unfortunately, I think all of our political parties lack this robust institutional cohesion.

For this to materialise, in Zambia’s fragile and nascent political set-up, parties need to be grassroots oriented, and this grassroots orientation must be bottom up, from the people, by the people and of the people.

What has often been the case is that because I think I am popular and I have a bit of money, I decide, often with pomp and ceremony at the Holiday Inn or Radisson Blu, media cameras galore and journalists beaming with gratitude for the transport allowances, that I will form the next government!

And so together with a few friends, we connive to register the party, and because we are so clever, we name and market this new party “The People’s Party,” even though none were in attendance at its Holiday Inn launch.

We ignore that enduring political parties cannot survive through empty sloganeering and clever marketing because they need to be people-driven bottom up entities with a unifying national message and national appeal.

To my mind, only two parties came close to that – the African National Congress and the United National Independence Party, by virtue of their all-inclusive assignment for political liberation.

In similar fashion, the MMD’s campaign for democratic emancipation was short-lived and soon faltered under the weight of the party’s diverse and competing forces.

Party formation may demand to be people-driven, but its success equally requires and depends on strong legitimate leadership.

The bogeyman of that equation is that strong leadership all too often morphs into hero-worshipping sycophancy and personalisation which compromises the leader’s vision.

At its most basic, we continuously see it played out every time we tune into ZNBC’s 19hrs news.

At the commissioning of a maternity clinic in rural Serenje, the women announce while gyrating rhythmically to the steady beat of the drums, before the media cameras, “Twatotela sana kubakateka!”

In Kaoma, “Lwaitumela ku bo President kakuluhupula niluna kwa Kaoma…” etc.

Zambians revel in dispensing high-minded praise even when they don’t really mean it.

And therein lies the catch. Because as soon as leadership climbs to its peak, it soon begins its descent.

For UPND to succeed where its predecessors have failed, it must transition at all levels, depersonalise its leadership and anchor its party structures into everyday society, moving away from personality cults to a systems-based bottom-up organic network.

For its competitors, the same holds true but even more so, since there can only be one option – which is to dig deep, swim often against the tide and remain afloat.

It’s a tough ask, but a necessary one if we are to avoid UNIP fifth edition ad infinitum.