By DARLINGTON CHILUBA
THERE is a nuanced belief which suggests that when people turn out in large numbers to vote, the outcome is usually that a new government is voted into office. Others rather suggest that when there is noise in the streets – usually by demonstrations, then those in high offices are forced to jump out of their windows. These are harsh observations that often serve to comfort those on the fringes of society who feel left out so that they are encouraged to confront big Government. Even in politics, the notion of the oppressed finally defeating their oppressors and taking the levers of power remains enduring and attractive. The revolutions of old times, independence and liberation movements had, at the core, the idea of emancipation and communal, or at least a future leadership that represented the many interests of the oppressed. At continental level, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was formed with the primary purpose of political emancipation of African territories. Those nations that attained independence, which was mostly political than economic emancipation, would partake in some form of activism to ensure that other occupied territories also became independent. The nobility of this cause, of emancipation from all forms of oppression cannot be overstated. Yet, the question of representative government became marred by leadership that curtailed basic rights of citizens in the newly independent states. External factors at that time, the polarised world between east and west, which seems to be returning in a new form with the Ukraine-Russia issue, forced countries to become politically rigid for fear of losing power. So, while there was a continental agreement to free other nations and host freedom fighters from those other countries, most of those champions of continental liberation became intolerant to internal freedom for their own citizens. Elections became cyclical and inconsequential because the outcomes were known. The Middle East, Africa and most parts of Asia either had long time rulers or going through some form of civil war. Furthermore, these were areas which preferred a social or communal approach to government than an economically led strategy. What made the economic governance approach more popular was that it provided tangible results that propelled the economic status of those countries compared to their counterparts. The resource sharing mechanism also allowed private citizens to share the economic benefits of those countries. Those who exported this form of governance ensured that this capitalism had within its system democratic traits that promoted the value of citizens and the enhancement of the citizen as a valued asset of the nation. The social approach was different. It was not the individual that was elevated but the entire community. Once government takes away personal identities, the value of the person can be perceived to be legally undermined. It is as if government exists to represent itself and those few who are fortunate to be associated with the ruling system. At global level for instance, the Cuban revolution 1953-1958 which ousted President Fulgencio Batista and installed Fidel Castro sought to create a representative system that identified with all citizens, not just the chosen few. The same case can be made for the Arab Spring in the early 2010s for Tunisia particularly because it started there and achieved the purpose of changing government but also ensuring that elections were a social cause for citizens to gauge and judge government performance over a given period. Tunisia’s change did not result in military intervention or prolonged civil unrest because the revolution was largely organic. In this case, the result or outcome of the revolt is a design of their own. The same cannot be said for Egypt, Libya and Syria for example. Foreign interests in these nations either hijacked or betrayed the organic social movement of citizens to seek representation at the highest levels. What became prominent was the removal, punishment and in one case assassination of the (previous) leadership. This was preceded by an investment in character assassinations of those leaders deemed difficult or antithetical to the global consensus. Some of the arsenal for character assassination or mischaracterisation could include accusations of nepotism, corruption or abuse of human rights. In the end, Syria has been split along dangerous tribal and regional lines while Libya has become a distortion and complex confluence of confusion deliberately manufactured against its own citizens. This must serve as a warning to all observant citizens to how far we can imbibe on foreign interests. This is the challenge when the international community seeks to have their interests represented in a foreign country at a level higher than citizens of that country. When foreign interests seek to domesticate their interests through political imposition and economic threats on a sovereign nation, ultimately, this will place government at odds with either its citizens or the international community. When government feels threatened, it will either bulldoze its citizens in favour of foreign interests or it will risk falling out of favour with those interests and hold honour to its people. Whatever the choice, it is most essential to explain to citizens the prevailing challenges and permit them to make a choice in a way that preserves the texture of the country – not foreign interests. Over the last 50 years or so, elections achieved the status of being the middle ground between an aggrieved society and what is perceived a non-responsive government. Zambia went without consequential elections for nearly 30 years and once that inherent right of choice was restored in 1991 by the uncelebrated patriots of modern Zambia, citizens easily and without fear express their opinions. They speak when they identify foreign priorities being put above their needs and consent to what is in favour of the nation. Representation for government, is firstly and prominently local, or national.
