THE GIFT OF INDEPENDENCE

By DARLINGTON CHILUBA

The theory of independence by those who colonized Africa and Asia is that it was, by and large, a gift. What former colonies regard as the evidential struggle and fight for their independence, is viewed conversely as a negotiated settlement. In fact, part of that theory suggests that the colonial nations did not have resources to fund the colonies any longer, especially after the Second World War. As such, the burden of self-rule had to be taught and transferred to indigenous people.

That viewpoint, of course, totally ignores the valiant fight for independence by people without modern military weaponry. It ignores the fact that Africans resolved to apply their mental capital to outmaneuver their oppressors. That perspective portrayed colonialism as the enlightenment of dark continents. This jaundiced view is meant to paint a narrative of the colonizer materially supporting the colonies when the opposite is actually the truth. Colonization was about resource extraction at its most brutal. If one pays attention to these views, it is notable that the same theory has been posited to explain the onset of democracy in Africa as externally driven for capitalist gain than a homegrown call for change.

This carefully planned perspective creates a separation of perception so that leaders at independence are perceived as organic and concerned for their nations. Everyone that came after is deliberately portrayed as business driven with zero concern for public welfare. Irrespective of the period, the narrative is the same, that Africans are not responsible for their own freedom. That both the era of self-rule from the 1940s and that of constitutional freedom (democracy) in 1990s were externally driven.
These belief systems are enforced for several reasons. One of them is to dissolve, minimize or delete the crimes of colonial rule such as the genocide in Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), among many others. Secondly, to legitimize colonialism (even slavery) as the genesis for African life economically and socially. This imposed legitimacy is the reason for the problematic constitutions inherited at independence for most new countries.

In Zambia, for example, the first constitution dictated who the first president should be (in Chapter Four, The Executive, Part 1 Article 32(1) and (2)). The leader was ‘assumed’ to have been legitimized by the constitution. Such “safe” clauses often made plural politics difficult because they were based on protecting power. The opposite is true for democracy. It ensures that people legitimize the constitution so that the document reflects public interest, not personal goals.
This is the difference between the 1964 and 1972 constitutions on one hand; and the 1991, 1996 constitutions which culminated in a proper document of public interest that the 2016 Zambian Constitution is.  Dictatorships largely used the power of law to protect their leadership and create personality cults that undermined the collective rights of citizens to choose their own leadership. Democracy makes the constitution subject to  – and a function of public interest.

In Zambia, where history is often fluid than factual, the ultimate test is to ask which document makes individual rights of independence a necessity of right and which presents it as an option with punishable consequences? Going forward, this must be the question when amendments to the living documents are proposed. It must be clear how any changes advance the individual and collective sovereignty and dignity of our nation otherwise any contra acts must be scorned upon and abhorred at the minimum.