By Kellys Kaunda
PARTISAN VS OBJECTIVE DEBATE – POLITICAL DISCOURSE ON ZAMBIAN SOCIAL MEDIA
WARNING: The article is unusually long.
Typically, debates on the Zambian social media space are classified as the ruling party versus the opposition. Anything that doesn’t belong to either side is accepted by some as the definition of objectivity or indecision by others.
I am an advocate for objective debate. This means teasing out the pros and cons of an issue.
Here are examples of partisan versus objective arguments.
PARTISAN STATEMENT: The current Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) is biased in favor of the ruling UPND.
OBJECTIVE STATEMENT: There’s no ECZ in the history of elections in this country that has never faced this kind of criticism.
By and large, Zambia has been working towards a more transparent electoral system which makes near-impossible any attempt to rig it in favor of anyone.
PARTISAN STATEMENT: Edgar Lungu was the worst President in the history of Zambia.
OBJECTIVE STATEMENT: ECL presided over one of the most ambitious infrastructure developments since the country returned to multiparty politics and a liberal economic system in 1991.
Typical of every investment in large scale public works, undoubtedly, there were incidences of corruption.
However, there does not appear to have been corruption on an industrial scale as the courts would have, by now, been inundated with such cases.
In addition, it is not in dispute that there was violence and caderism under ECL. But this was the case under every government since UNIP days. Which era was worse is a matter of personal taste.
PARTISAN STATEMENT: Hichilema is just as tribalistic as any leader Zambia has ever had.
OBJECTIVE STATEMENT: Other than KK, every leader in Zambia has faced this accusation.
Short of any credible measurement, claims of one being worse than the other remains in the realm of individual perceptions.
PARTISAN STATEMENT: UPND will double the economy in the next five years.
OBJECTIVE STATEMENT: At best, this is simply an ambition or an aspiration. As at now, there’re no credible economic growth or diversification initiatives on the table to persuade a non-partisan mind that indeed the UPND will double the economy in the next 5yrs.
In other words, it’s not impossible to double the economy but there’re no ideas, let alone, tried and tested strategies, to make that a reality.
PARTISAN STATEMENT: Hichilema is responsible for the delay in the burial of his predecessor.
OBJECTIVE STATEMENT: The administrative arrangements that have been in place regarding the burial of ECL, understandably, needed to be adhered to.
In addition, the High Court ruling in the Kaweche Kaunda versus the State re-enforced the existing administrative guidelines.
It is not in dispute that the former and late President was politically mistreated by the incumbent which has played a huge role in the non-burial of the incumbent.
Perhaps, it’s good for the country that this impasse has occurred and the matter has been taken to court for determination so that the aftermath may guide this country in designing a framework that could stand the test of time.
PARTISAN STATEMENT: There’s no one among the current opposition contenders that are as fit as Hichilema to lead this country.
OBJECTIVE STATEMENT: Like most of his predecessors, Hichilema has had to deal with the same public policy challenges that have persistently beset this country.
Often it has had to do with macroeconomic stability, public debt, infrastructure investment and social programs and projects.
Like Hichilema, none of his predecessors demonstrated any significant groundbreaking policy initiatives to wow the senses of an ordinary Zambian.
Five years into Hichilema’s term in office, the life of an ordinary Zambian remains as bad as it has always been.
What this means is that Hichilema cannot be described as possessing any unique leadership qualities that he must be preferred over the likes of Brian Mundubile, Fred M’membe, Makebi Zulu, etc.
These are but just a few examples of what partisan and objective arguments look like.
In the interest of brevity, I chose not to be exhaustive in my arguments.
Disclaimer: Being an advocate of objective debate doesn’t mean that being partisan is a bad thing.
The latter is a legitimate choice as well. It has its own utility value. The same can be said of objectivity.