The rise of class colonialism
|
Source:
This article is a personal reaction to the National Constitutional Conference’s (NCC) adoption of the “degree clause’’ for presidential candidates. And the views thus expressed herein are more of academic analysis rather than political. And as a senior Bemba chief I am on a more superior moral position than politicians and I cannot therefore degrade myself by participating in cheap party politics of insults. This is because politicians govern people by words and their words need not be true or intelligible. This entails me to be politically neutral and to support the government of the day and its incumbent chief executive, who is now President Rupiah Banda. However, the National Constitutional Conference is an independent body which does not in anyway reflect government policies or programmes, but whose task is merely to try and chart the destiny of this nation. And the “degree clause’’ is merely one of the sophisticated and subtlety end-products in the foreign-engineered Mung’omba Draft Constitution which is the most deceitful document that has ever been produced in Zambia’s history of deceit which is intended to consign the peasants into slavery much worse than death itself. Zambia has become one of the most unequal societies in the world and the ‘’degree clause’’ by the NCC means that ‘’class racism’’ is on the way to be institutionalized. The Zambian society is split into the minority class of economic winners which inhabit a cosmopolitan world of affluence and a growing underclass with little or no hope of economic ascent. A Catholic priest, Father Pete Henriot has warned of “Zambia moving towards economic apartheid…poverty is not just a political issue, but also a moral problem which can segregate citizens on lines of the former apartheid regime of South Africa. We are moving towards economic apartheid in Zambia which is dividing the nation on poverty lines.’’ In order to have a clear picture of what is currently at play, with reference to black imperialism and class colonialism, we must lean on colonial history which reveals conflicts between progressive and reactionary minds, the important issue was how to create workable multiracial societies in Africa. For example, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe) intended to abolish colour lines and the Central African man was to cease to be considered as black, white or brown. Henceforward, the divisions were only to be drawn between the civilised and the primitive; between the competent and the incapable. It was basically claimed that there was no discrimination according to race, but simply the adoption of the criterion of merit. The stipulation was that political control must be kept “in civilised hands’’ since nothing can improve by “the rule of the thumb’’ (universal suffrage). In today’s modern technology it is between the intelligentsia and the activist. In fact, this is far worse than what is at play in the Mung’omba Draft Constitution which was under written by the whites and which is being hailed as the apotheosis of emergent intellectual nationalism and the concept of equal rights for every Zambian are being shot down. According to articles 152 (1) and 153 (1), cabinet and deputy ministers would be appointed by the President outside Parliament. The Commissioners shot down the submissions that suggested that cabinet ministers should be Members of Parliament: “The petitioners argued that the ministers’ interaction with the constituencies adds value to their participation in cabinet decisions. Further the current arrangement presents the President with a reservoir of persons approved by the people for leadership positions.’’ The Commissioners rejected: “The commission, is however, of the view that the demerits of a cabinet appointed from outside are mitigated by a number of factors. Ministers appointed would have requisite qualifications as opposed to political allegiance….this would afford the President a large pool of competent and capable Zambians.’’ (emphasis mine). A “political formula’’ is the expression in political terms of the characteristic pattern of social and political activity. And the political system can be internalised into cognitions, feelings and evaluations of its population. And Zambia’s political formula is based on Britain’s Westminster model and can be viewed as consequential upon the logic of cabinet concentration. In this scenario, the powers of cabinet ministers and of the executive are generally without restrictions and the power of the political party caucus is untrammeled. It is certainly foolhardy to surrender such powers to a bunch of un-elected foreign-stooges to make final decisions on all-important national matters. It is amazing that these foreign-stooges would not be answerable to anybody as Article 152 (5) of the Draft Constitution clearly states: ‘’A minister shall only attend the sittings of the National Assembly when necessary or when required to do so by the Speaker and take part in the proceedings of the National Assembly.’’ You can note that these ‘’civilised individuals’’ would have nothing to do with the affairs of the primitives in Parliament and yet people are the object materials of every government. The Commissioners recommended a cabinet and that public affairs would be supervised by service commissions. In this case there would be 22 cabinet posts, 18 deputy ministers, 9 cabinet ministers in charge of provinces and 18 commissions, each having 10 members that is, 180 members on monthly hefty salaries and allowances. There would be 230 un-elected political-failures running the government with their wives and husbands who would have absolutely nothing to do with the people! The National Citizens’ Coalition reported in Social Watch Report 2002 that President Kaunda left poverty rate in 1991 at 56 per cent, but ten years later President Chiluba left the poverty rate at 80 perc ent. ‘’A characteristic feature of Zambia’s poverty is that it was bred by the government and the international institutions. Zambia’s poverty did not just happen it was caused.’’ The whole thing is about a new concept in the ideological armoury of imperialism known as ‘’statecraft,’’ which is the art of wielding state power in the interests of local elites and imperialism. In other words, ‘’statecraft’’ is a ‘’craft’’ because it is both an art and a set of particular outcomes in which control over state power is cleverly taken away from and above the heads of the poor to attain class objectives of domestic parasitic elites under the tutelage, protection and for the ultimate benefit of the capitalist-exploiter. And as already alluded to, that “Zambia’s poverty did not just happen; it was caused.’’ Statecraft is a concept and a practice that consciously aims to demobilise the people as a motive force for change and treats them as objects i.e., citizens who obey class biased ‘’rule of law’’ and religiously follow directives from a vanguard leadership. The goal of statecraft is to create a state of democratic, well-governed nation that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves ‘’responsibly’’ (i.e., according to the capitalist-exploiter’s rules). This is the best way to provide enduring security, not for the ordinary people, but for the capitalist-exploiter. How can these people claim ‘’to have requisite political qualifications,’’ when the same visionless technocrats entered the corridors of power in 1991, began to run the country in academic terms as they were taught in lecture halls and it wasn’t long before they themselves realised that their neat theories did not work out tidily on the ground when they hit all kinds of snags involved in finding answers to the unpredictable human material which is the object of all governments. No wonder, John Phiri asked this question: “…….which universities did these educated fools go to where they were given out degrees, masters and PhDs on how to plunder a nation’s funds? Zambia is now a rotten society because of such educated fools.’’ (Education Post 10th July 2005). On the other hand, during the struggle for independence, the African political wisdom was summarised in the slogan, ‘’one man, one vote.’’ And when independence was attained, it came as a package deal, which had extended the vote to the peasants. And Therefore “one man, one vote’’ is the only legacy that we second-hand citizens must hold on to, which was bequeathed to us by our uneducated ancestors who heavily paid through the spill of blood for Zambia’s independence. And according to John Hatch, Zambia at the time of independence had about 100 university graduates; 1,500 persons with full secondary education i.e., equivalent to Grade 12 and about 6,000 persons with two years at secondary school i.e., equivalent to Grade 9. The question is: Where are the members of the National Constitution Conference (NCC) getting the views or opinions on what is best for the Zambian people besides the useless Mung’omba Draft Constitution since they do not consult the people? Because immediately their names were announced, they rushed to Lusaka and embarked on the task. It is certainly the pooled opinions of their family members and friends. In fact senior chief Nkomeshya Mukamambo II, a Commissioner but in her unusual penetrating insight told the conference on 14th May 2009 that the final draft constitution should be submitted for review by the general public before being tabled in Parliament. And as I have already alluded to “that a political system can be internalised into cognitions, feelings and evaluations of its population,’’ I am, however, very skeptical that though it is always claimed that the members of the National Constitution Conference represent a cross-section of the people’s opinions because my comparisons in the October 2006 presidential elections between “the intelligentsia” (Levy Mwanawasa) and “the activist’’ (Michael Sata) and the November 2008 presidential elections between “the intelligentsia’’ (Rupiah Banda) and “the activist’’ (Michael Sata) in three selected constituencies located in civilised communities present a tricky picture: Lusaka Central Sata Now the question is: Now if the sophisticated preferred the activist, is it the unsophisticated peasants who unanimously told the NCC delegates to adopt the “degree clause’’ in the Constitution? Or is it at their own making? Email:hsosalakapalakasha@yahoo.com
|
