Wed, 10 May 2017 12:02:38 +0000
THE political maturity that the French people demonstrated during the campaigns and subsequent two-round presidential elections reflect best international practices that Zambian politicians and our nascent democracy must emulate.
Much as numerous factors such as political ideology, type of governance, environmental set up, to mention but a few, influence the practice of national politics, the similarities outweigh the disparities. The need for some minimum acceptable standards to be observed in each political environment to create the right political atmosphere cannot be overemphasised.
For instance, though Emmanuel Macron, 39, is the youngest French Head of State since Napoleon times, he succeeded to convince the French electorates because he packaged a more business-friendly campaign message for economic reformation and democratic revolution that would unlock France’s potential to propel national development.
Put simply, he addressed the real issues that the French need to be attended for the betterment of their lives. In any case, what is the essence of politics if it fails to address the needs of the people?
Do our politicians endeavour to practice politics that addresses issues affecting our nation beyond campaign rhetoric?
We do not think this is the case. Usually, our politicians do not address core issues that Zambians are interested in. Our politics is vacuous, hence lacking inspiration for social and economic transformation.
It is shameful that many politicians in the opposition have failed to play their significant role of providing the much needed timely checks and balances to the governing party.
Instead, they tend to be either arm-chair critics or singing praises to the government. As a result of this political polarisation, electorates are deprived of an opportunity to critically evaluate each political party and make informed choices.
The recycling of campaign messages which are devoid of novel ideas in the run up to the general elections has become commonplace. What is more sickening is the habit by politicians to adopting uncivil modes of conducting election campaigns. They spend valuable time on character assassination, dissemination of scandalous messages in an effort to discredit their perceived opponents when this does not benefit ordinary citizens in any way.
If anything, it is this inability by political party leaders to address real economic and social issues affecting our people that reduces the level of campaign to political violence and physical confrontation as a means to overpower perceived opponents.
In a democracy like ours which is fairly older than many Southern Africa’s countries, it is expected that political players exhibit a high degree of political maturity in the way they practise politics. Those who aspire for elective political positions must convince the voters with developmental ideas, and not orchestrating violence against their perceived political
opponents.
In every political space, there are core issues that speak to the heart of a particular society; unity, socio-economic liberation, justice, certainty for a more secure future and adherence to democratic tenets
always stand tall.
Simultaneously, society will always resist politicians that exude characteristics which seem to suggest division of people on sexual, racial, religious, tribal or regional boundaries. This is what the French society rejected in the Sunday presidential elections when they overwhelmingly voted against the National Front candidate Marine Le Pen whose anti-immigrants policies once made it a pariah, and underline the scale of division that the President-Elect Emmanuel Macron must now try to heal.
Over time, Zambian voters have demonstrated their unflinching determination to reject some political parties from forming government on account of projecting a narrow, tribal and divisive agenda which threaten the co-existence as a solitary nation.
We concur with Southern African Centre for the Constructive Resolution (SACCORD) for the inevitable need for our politicians to exercise tolerance towards one another, mutual respect and statesmanship after the winner has been declared. This is cardinal.
And it is well known that in an election, there can only be one winner, and the insistence on winning an election by those who lose is not only a sign of political immaturity but also shows lack of understanding of how democracy works.
Anyone can be a good winner but the sign of a great man is how one handles defeat. Are those who lose an election and insist to have won, let alone refuse to
recognise the legitimately elected candidate great?
