By Kellys Kaunda
IS HH MORE SUITABLE THAN OTHER CONTENDERS FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT?
Increasingly, this is becoming a discussion in the country.
The state of the economy is being described as being in a far better shape than it was under the previous government.
Painting a broad brush, the overall outlook of the governance of the country is also described as far much better than it was under ECL.
The possible replacements for HH include Kalaba, Mundubile, Zulu, Kateka, Mwamba, Chilufya, M’membe, Silavwe, Imboela, Sangwa, Kangombe, Mudolo, Banda, Mawele, etc.
The scrutiny of potential Presidents is influenced by, among other factors, the following: partisan views; personal preferences; incumbency; intellectual skills; practical knowledge of public policies; ambivalence; economic status; etc.
Are candidates or aspirants evaluated for their competencies, and if so, do voters know the competencies required of the position of President?
Or they are evaluated based on their incumbency, influence by other people’s opinions, etc, etc?
For instance, why was Kaunda, Chiluba, Mwanawasa, RB, Sata, ECL and HH voted for?
Lest I come across as projecting my views as the objective answer, my humble opinion is that it was not because there were any special inherent qualities in these men that they became Presidents.
They became Presidents because the voter made that decision for reasons that may be divergent.
In fact, the majority of these men were not even in the immediate “vicinity” of the voter until circumstances shoved aside the most likely heirs to the throne.
Their so-called leadership qualities were socially constructed by their supporters to inform their campaign messaging.
None of the men that have occupied the office of President have been any more suitable to lead this country than their opponents.
There’s nothing special, unique or unprecedented about their record in office to suggest that their opponents couldn’t do that and more.
There’s no objective truth in the suggestion that HH is more qualified or suitable to lead Zambia now and beyond 2026 than his opponents.
Even if he wins 2026, it won’t be a confirmation of his competencies and suitability because, to a large extent, electoral outcomes are very much like gambling.
You don’t win a lottery ticket because of intelligent calculations neither do you win an election because you are the best suited for the job.
For those of you that win elections, Councilors, MPs and Presidents, accept your victory with humility because electoral outcomes are not about you, but largely an outcome of the voter’s choice.
Guys think before you write and post something for the public to read. I just don’t seem to get your point in this piece of posting. You should have done something else meaningful.
Well said Chester.There is no critical thought placed before people write.
The author is another Diamonde Siulapwa touting what they are not.
These are low IQ Characters, who started off as mere Newspaper Reporters or Newscasters but later propelled to Ambassadorial postings or higher government positions by their tribal Parties in government through patronage and nepotism. Can anything sensible come out from them?
You have hammered it very well, any person that can ascend to presidency has personal strengths and weaknesses, to say one is the best is a fallacy because everyone that has lead this country has contributed both positively and negatively without exception, therefore any person who is chosen by the people should be embraced to also add his good things to the leadership of this country without exception