Should Chiefs in Zambia be involved in ‘Active or Partisan politics’?

Notice: Undefined index: catFilterList in /home/zambi/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-likes/api.php on line 243

Wednesday May 19, 2018 By Alfred A. K. Ndhlovu [Hon.]

SEVERAL political leaders in Zambia have commented, or sometimes comment, that all chiefs should not comment on political matters because as traditional rulers they must be neutral in politics.

There are two terms which have not been defined properly by politicians themselves which confuse the citizens of Zambia.

The terms are “active politics” and “partisan politics” to which can, or must, be added the other common phrase “traditional rulers”.

Is being neutral in politics consistent with respect for fundamental human rights? Do chiefs have human rights as traditional rulers and if so what are those human rights?

Is the duty to control child marriages a prerogative of chiefs? How? Where are the parents (fathers and mothers) of boys and girls who marry early? Are chiefs better placed to control under twenty years old marriages?

There are too many questions to deal with over this matter and Zambians have a duty to examine it in order to reach a positive consensus.

Let me first define the phrase “partisan politics” which is often used incorrectly in some cases.

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, the word “partisan” is defined as an adjective (often disapproving) showing too much support for one person, group or idea, especially without considering it carefully.

The synonym is “one-sided”. An example given is the sentence, most newspapers are politically partisan.As a noun it is defined as 1. A person whostrongly supports a particular leader, group or idea.

The synonym is follower. 2. A member of an armed group that is fighting secretly against enemy soldiers who have taken control of its country. A [U] noun is Partisanship.

Chiefs in Zambia fought for freedom and independence of Zambia side by side with political leaders in the African National Congress (ANC) of Northern Rhodesia), the United National Independence Party (UNIP) and several other political parties.

In fact, chiefs argued with the Colonial Government that political party leaders were their own sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, etc.

What was good for politicians was also good for them. Some chiefs were even de-Gazetted by the colonial government and only to be restored and Gazetted by the first UNIP Administration after 1964.

It should be noted that the struggle for independence needed popular support and more urgently, money, to fund operations of freedom fighters.

Most chiefs were fundraisers, so to speak, for political party leaders of UNIP and ANC who flew to the United Kingdom to negotiate freedom and independence at the Colonial Office in London.

Was the chiefs’ participation in the struggle for freedom and independence in vain? Certainly, it was not in vain. Chiefs knew that they were oppressed and that freedom and independence was good for them, too.

Zambia has now been independent for more than 50 years. Obviously, politicians must find a better way to work with all chiefs. Zambia needs chiefs just as much as chiefs need politicians.

The House of Chiefs which is an old institution is now inadequate. Perhaps, an institution which can harmonize existing institutions is necessary. Education level among chiefs has improved tremendously such that it is now easy to dialogue with them to arrive at an amicable consensus.

When colonialists came to Africa generally and future Zambia in particular, they found chiefs presiding over affairs of various communities. In some cases, colonialists created other chiefs in places where communities did not have chiefs.

The infamous indirect rule was consequently established. This was possible because colonialists had guns whereas native communities had spears, knobkerries, bows and arrows in their arsenals.

The most unfortunate aspect of traditional rule and authority was that it was not written. Even court sessions of the time have no written records. Communities and their chiefs depended on rote(the process of learning something by repeating it until you remember it rather thanby understanding the meaning of it- Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary) to keep records.

This is what has made it very hard and difficult to review the traditional institutions. One frustrating aspect of traditional rule is that it is mostly undemocratic. Chiefs do not ordinarily serve their people for a stated termof office. They serve until death.

Strong and privileged families have monopolized these authorities. They believe that they were born to rule. This is what is implied.

There are some tribes, however, which elect their chiefs once and wait until s/he dies before another one is elected to replace the dead one.

This type of election takes place within the confines of family members and those who the community mayrequire to secretly participate in electing a new Chief or Litunga. The Kaunda Administration in independent Zambia found it very difficult to convince chiefs to accept democratic changes because of illiteracy.

The only Paramount Chief who the UNIP Government dealt with was Gawa Undi of the Chewa who had secondary (high) school education. The difficulties of harmonization were thus compounded.

The Litunga of the Lozi, for instance, comes from any of the four designated families. From 1964 to date, three clans have so far been in charge, Lewanika, Yeta and Imwiko.

Lozis have not had a woman as Litunga. The fourth Litunga is on the way to succeed Imwiko in the years ahead. The Lozi traditional structure is elaborate and serves the needs of Lozi community well.

The country, however, has changed and the rise of democracy means that the traditional structure must be reviewed to takeinto account fundamental human rights besides democracy.

Some communities, like the Ngoni, appoint the first born son of the first wife of the Chief to succeed the father. A woman is not eligible to be appointed Chief of the Ngoni. One who is not s direct son of the chief cannot be appointed to the position to succeed the dead chief.

As a polygamous community, Ngoni chiefs’ wives are counted first, second, third, etc.There is no practice in the structure which one could refer to as democratic. Tribal elders usually make decisions which are binding on the community. Change of the system is as inconspicuous as it is in other traditional rulers’ communities around Zambia!

Bembas, Chewas and several other communities choose chiefs from the chief’s wife lineage.

It is maternal uncles/nephews who are eligible to succeed a dead chief. Chewas designate a “Nyangu” “Mother” to bear a son to succeed Undi when he dies. Bembas have not been known to have had a woman Chitimukulu.

They have strictly reserved that role to men only. It is the same with Chewas, they have not been known, at least in living memory, to have had a female Undi whose traditional title is “Gawa”- Sharer, Custodian of resources especially land.

The issue of women occupying positions of leadership in traditional communities is sickening to say the least. It is said that when Ngonis reached old Isoka area, the leader, Zwangendaba, was told that Chief Nawaitwika in the area was actually a woman.

Zwangendaba replied, “…do not fight her because she may be pregnant”. He encouraged Ngoni men to marry beautiful Namwanga women. The Namwangas, consequently became friends of the Ngoni.

Zambians need to probe these aspects and traditions in order to build a new and better Zambia for all. Silence and fear are counter-productive. Answers emerge from talking and debating issues.

The civilized British Monarchy in the United Kingdom (of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) also operates on similar lines but it is one institution which has been reformed over the years.

The UK has a unique democracy in spite of being a monarchy. Kings and Queens in the UK are not politicians.

The House of Commons is steered by politicians and the prime minister presides in the House Commons face to face with leader of the opposition most of them have succeeded as prime ministers after fair and democratic elections.

The UK has another strong institution called the House of Lords. Members of the House of Lords are what I may term a “Mixed Grill” of peers some of whom are hereditary.

Britain has built these institutions through dialogue and writings of ideas of what must be done to and for their country to be a vibrant and modern democracy.

Tribes are what the people of Zambia are in the context of the famous One Zambia One Nation slogan or motto.

Other countries also have tribes which have been fused into emerging nations as they democratize. Democratization is a very viable process. It implies writing a time-tested Republican Constitution of Zambia.

The constitutions which Zambia has had are tailor-made to suit the political party in power and its president who supporters may regard as immortal. This is wrong and, therefore, must be corrected.

What do Zambian politicians mean by the phrase, “active politics”? How can a person be said to be involved in “active” politics?

The word “active” has many meanings. I will derive those meanings, once again, from my often used and referred to Oxford Advanced Learner’s  Dictionary in which the word “active” has six meanings as follows: 1. Always busy doingthings, especially physical activities. 2. Involved in something; making adetermined effort and not leaving something happen by itself. 3. Doing something regularly; functioning. 4. Lively and full of ideas. 5. Having or causing a chemical effect. 6.Connected with a verb whose subject is the person or thingthat performs the action.

As can be seen and deduced from some of the meanings given above, the phrase “active politics” is used wrongly, in my view. It is the person who should be “active” in politics which is why politicians are actually the peoplewho are active in politics because they belong to different political parties and campaign for themselves and their colleagues.

Chiefs are neutral personalities. However, this does not mean that they cannot comment or indeed ask questions on matters of development in the country.

They must be let talk as a matter of right since they are citizens of Zambia who are affected by decisions which politicians make. Chiefs were largely illiterate in the past.

The situation has dramatically changed for the better. The majority of chiefs are now very educated. Several of them can claim to have degrees or studying to obtain diplomas and degrees.

This is why they must not be treated unfairly or indeed politicians insinuating that chiefs should not be commenting on matters of a political nature. Zambia is a democracy where every citizen must be given opportunity to speak negatively or positively.

Praising a president has the opposite of criticizing the same president. It follows, therefore, that if praising a president is good, criticizing the president must equally be good.

Tribalism and ethnicity have existed throughout the world. Nationalism has several other interpretations besides what Zambians may know from their motto of One Zambia, One Nation.

England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are considered as nations within the larger British Nation. Their soccer is organized according to these nations. They compete for the FIFA world Cup as such.

One season, the FIFA World Cup will see England versus Scotland in the final! It will be amazing, but really not surprising. Tribes and ethnic groups take a very long time to end. As you read this, it is, perhaps, your grand-children who will not identify themselves as Ngonis, Bembas, Chewas, Lozis, Tongas, etc,.

At one of Ncwala Ceremonis in the past a German national told me that Germany has dealt with tribalism and ethnicity challenges through the Germany Constitution.

The influence of tribalism and ethnicity has considerably been reduced in modern Germany. Zambia and Africa should learn from Western Nations which deal with these challenges quietly but effectively.

The pen and paper are mightier than the sword and guns. Zambia must address its tribalism and ethnicity through the Republican Constitution. A committee of, say, three or more constitutional lawyers can ably do the task.

The bedrock of Zambian culture is what we do any time and every time. Traditional ceremonies such as Ncwala, Mutomboko, Kulamba, Kuomboka, Kusefya Pangw’ena and many others are part of our lives. They started a long time ago.

We enjoy them. A number of tourists, for instance, joined dancing at the Ncwala 2018 Ceremony because they were happy to witness the event. Ncwala Ceremony organizers expect a lot more tourists from all parts of the world to come and witness future events. Tourists enjoyed relaxing themselves away from home.

The Kuomboka Ceremony is a very interesting event. A European tourist once remarked,”…people here play with floods but we do not play with floods at home because they are dangerous…”! Each team of organizers of these ceremonies is expected to advertise the events at home and abroad.

As long as the Zambezi River exists as it is coupled with good rainfall, our Lozis will continue to play with floods in the Kuomboka Ceremony.

There appears to be a misunderstanding regarding what unites Zambians. Some Zambians think that our motto unites us. This is far from the truth. The motto is actually a statement of intent, if I may call it that.

Our desire is that Zambia should be one country of one nation. Our Founding Fathers were at pains to work out a formula that could be used to realize the objective.

They observed, however, that those who went to school and learned English easily conversed as one people regardless of what tribes they came from. The list of 72 tribes which was compiled by the Northern Rhodesia Government was analyzed carefully and our Founding Fathers decided to use seven local languages from the list for convenience only.

English was selected to be a business, commercial and political language which every Zambian was expected to learn and use accordingly. English was made into a constitutional language, a privilege which local languages do not have.

This means that the leadership at all levels must encourage all Zambians to use English which is now a Commonwealth language. English is no longer a foreign language in Zambia. It is our language and we must be proud of it. I have examined several local tongues and I am afraid to say they cannot serve the wider national interest.

I get amazed and surprised to see politicians failing to use English at rallies, meetings and other forums in this country. They drift into local languages which are lacking in interpretation of laws, mathematics and science. Prices of things everywhere are fixed in English numbers which have no easy equivalents in local tongues. This is obviously confusion requiring rectification.

A very good example is the Copper-belt Province which is supposed to be leading in speaking English but alas it behaves like many people there did not go to school. The local tongue dominates.

The Copper-belt actually has more educated people than there are in other provinces. Even its population is beyond 3million citizens who mostly have gone to school beyond grade 12.

The use of English by Copper-belters will definitely improve their relations and make them productive in many areas of human endeavor.

I can give examples of some of the Founding Fathers who spoke impeccable English, all of whom are dead; Mr. Solomon Kalulu (Soli), Mr. Elijah Mudenda (Tonga), Mr. Arthur Wina (Lozi), Mr. Wesley Nyirenda (Tumbuka), Mr. Justine Chimba (Bemba), Mr. ShadreckSoko (Ngoni), Mr. Hyden Banda (Tumbuka), Mr. Reuben Kamanga (Ngoni), Mr. Simon Kapwepwe (Bisa), Mr. Mainza Chona (Tonga), Mr. Humphrey Mulemba (Kaonde) and many more.

These leaders learned English and used it to bargainfor our freedom and independence. They rarely and hardly used local tongues when addressing political rallies. That was how they built unity to achieve the One Zambia, One Nation dream.

Many politicians blindly refer to tribalism in Zambia today by quoting the list of 72 tribes shown hereunder. It must be mentioned that intermarriage between tribes, Europeans, Russians, Indians and others has modified the structure of tribal communities.

As already stated above seven of the 72 tribes have slots on ZNBC-TV and Radio to broadcast local programmes and versions of news bulletins.

This means that 65 tribes were deliberately left out because they could be grouped with other similar tongues such as Tonga embracing Soli and Lenje.

The whole of the Eastern Province was made to speak Chinyanja, a tribe-less tongue. Bemba is used in the areas of Luapula, Northern, Central and Copper-belt Provinces.

Lozi dominates Western Province. North-Western Province uses several tongues; Kaonde, Lunda and Luvale.The liberalization of the media, however, has given rise to the emergence of many local radio stations which broadcast in appropriate tongues such as Soli, Mambwe, Lenje, Tumbuka, Senga and a few others.

Private TV stations are also mushrooming across the country, but these broadcast largely in English. This is as it should be as our Zambia is on the move forward to develop.

The famous list of tribes is as follows:

1. Ambo 21. Lenje 41.Mbunda               61.Swaka
2. Aushi 22. Leya                42.Mbwela                62. Swahili

3.Bemba               23. Lima                    43.Mukulu                 63.Tabwa

4. Bisa 24. Liyuwa 44.Mulonga               64. Tambo
5. Chewa 25. Lozi 45.Namwanga           65.Toka
6. Chikunda 26. Luano                46.Ndembu              66. Tonga
7. Chishinga 27. Luchazi 47.Ngoni                   67.Totela
8. Chokwe 28. Lumbu               48.Ng’umbo             68.Tumbuka
9. Gova 29. Lunda 49.Nkoya                   69.Twa
10. Ila 30. Lundwe 50.Nsenga                 70.Unga
11. lwa 31. Lungu                   51.Nyengo                  71.Wandya
12. Kabende 32. Luunda                52.Nyika                      72.Yombe
13. Kaonde 33. Luvale 53.Sala
14. Kosa 34. Makoma             54.Seba
15. Kunda 35. Mambwe 55.Senga
16. Kwandi  36. Mashasha           56.Shanjo
17. Kwandu 37. Mashi                     57.Shila
18. Kwangwa  38. Mbowe                  58.Simaa
19. Lala 39. Mbukushu             59. Soli
20. Lamba 40. Mbumi 60.Subiya

This list was compiled in the 1947s by the Colonial Administration and may not have been exhaustive at the time but theZambian Government Administration records show that the list has not been revised and chiefs throughout the country are 485, of whom 4 are Paramount Chiefs.

My assessment in this article is that politicians must ideally respect chiefs as fellow leaders who are pursuing the same cause of developing Zambia.

Some chiefs who commented on president Lungu’s parentage were perfectly in order because they were looking for the truth which president Lungu was hiding. They were not acting in politics or playing partisanship in the circumstances. I have adequately dealt with the issue of citizenship elsewhere.

A Zambian with one parent hailing from outside Zambia cannot be a good president because of divided loyalty. It is the same with a naturalized one.

Such a president will not understand rural areas and may start molesting chiefs because s/he may not understand them. Be and stay at peace with all chiefs.

Wednesday May 19, 2018 …END…By Alfred A. K. Ndhlovu [Hon.]