OPEN LETTER TO FRANK BWALYA
Dear Frank Bwalya,
I write this open letter in response to your recent critique of Thandiwe Kitis Ngoma’s message regarding President Hichilema’s public defense of Chipo Mwanawasa. In defending the President’s actions, you mischaracterize the essence of Ngoma’s concerns, which were not aimed at dismissing his right to protect Ms. Mwanawasa but rather questioning the appropriateness of the method he chose.
Ngoma’s letter did not oppose the President’s desire to defend a young woman subjected to rumors, but instead highlighted the ethical and practical concerns of publicly involving Ms. Mwanawasa in a deeply personal issue. When the President asked her to stand before an audience to disprove these baseless claims, he inadvertently placed her in the public spotlight, which could have further implications she may not have desired or anticipated. This is not about undermining the President’s integrity it is about underscoring the risk of amplifying a young woman’s unwanted visibility in a sensitive matter.
In your response, you argue that Ngoma, as a woman, should feel compelled to support the President’s actions. However, her position can be seen as rooted in empathy precisely because she values Ms. Mwanawasa’s right to privacy. True empathy may involve respecting an individual’s autonomy and shielding them from becoming part of a political narrative, regardless of the intentions behind it.
The President could have demonstrated his commitment to dispelling harmful rumors without turning Ms. Mwanawasa into a symbol for political defense. A simple statement condemning the rumors would have sufficed, sparing Ms. Mwanawasa further exposure. Ngoma’s critique thus advocates for a more considerate approach that could have preserved Ms. Mwanawasa’s dignity without thrusting her into additional public scrutiny.
Ngoma’s letter highlights a broader principle that leaders should exercise caution when involving private citizens, particularly young and potentially vulnerable individuals, in political situations. Despite the President’s intentions, his actions effectively positioned Ms. Mwanawasa within a public controversy, which could have been avoided. This does not imply an attack on his character but raises legitimate questions about the ethics of using personal defense to address political accusations.
By dismissing this perspective as politically motivated, you sidestep the real issue at hand whether the President’s choice respected Ms. Mwanawasa’s privacy and whether it may unintentionally set a precedent for how private citizens could be drawn into political narratives.
Ngoma’s letter raises a valid concern about the optics and potential impact of the President’s approach. Your accusation of strawman fallacies seems misdirected. Her argument is straightforward the President’s public defense, while well intentioned, could have been handled more privately to shield Ms. Mwanawasa from the unwanted limelight. To interpret this as a political attack misses Ngoma’s point about the responsibility of leaders to manage sensitive issues with prudence.
Moreover, by characterizing Ngoma’s concerns as a mere attack on the President, you overlook the importance of responsible governance when dealing with private individuals. This deflection undermines the seriousness of Ngoma’s ethical stance and reduces it to a political critique rather than the thoughtful call for accountability it truly is.
In any democratic society, citizens have a right indeed, an obligation to voice concerns about the actions of their leaders, especially if they perceive those actions to be potentially harmful or insensitive. Constructive criticism, like Ngoma’s letter, holds leadership accountable, fostering transparency and trust. To dismiss such concerns as politically motivated undermines the foundation of healthy public discourse and threatens to silence necessary dialogue under the guise of partisan loyalty.
As I conclude, it’s vital to recognize that democracy relies on the ability to question leaders’ actions openly and constructively without fear of being labeled as politically biased. Ngoma’s differing perspective is a testament to this principle. Having divergent views does not mean one harbors a political agenda, nor does it imply a desire to diminish the President’s character. Instead, it signals a commitment to accountability a value that strengthens, not weakens, democratic governance.
Respectfully,
Abraham Simpamba