By Dr Julius Kapembwa
THE LUNGU CABINET
Introduction
The Zambian Constitution pronounces the country as multi-ethnic. This is not an empty declaration like the Christian Nation one. Any deviation from it is sacrilegious and must be rebuked unequivocally. The proscription against ethnic discrimination can be justified on deontological, utilitarian, and communitarian or Ubuntu ethical grounds. Every Zambian has intrinsic worth usually espoused in the language of human rights. This imposes duties to treat all Zambians with respect regardless of their ethnicity. A set of rules that counts everyone’s interests equally regardless of ethnicity is likely to engender greater aggregate wellbeing than a set of rules that treats some people as more equal than others in virtue of their ethnicity. Our humanity rests in acting so as to enhance harmony and to reduce discord, and in protecting those who are threatened. In a just society, opportunities must be equally open to all and scarce resources must be distributed to benefit the worst off.
The cabinet is the cockpit of a nation, decisions made there determine whether we float aimlessly, we sink, or we dock safely at our destination of choice. Cabinet represents the apex of the country’s human resource. Cabinet determines the priorities and quantities in distributing national goods. Ministers are influential in allocating opportunities, jobs, contracts, and services. Therefore, lack of ethnic representation in cabinet can have dire consequences for the underrepresented ethnic groups. Is President Edgar Lungu’s cabinet a just one? Let us look inside….
Ethnicity in PF cabinet
Ethnic identity revolves around language, ancestry, religion, legends of a glorious past, mythical stories of genesis, myths of special divine election, and some other phenotypical idiosyncrasies that can make members of an ethnic community recognise one another thousands of miles away from ‘home’. There is so much to say about the blessings of a multi-ethnic society. But ethnicity is a poisoned chalice. It can stagnate or ruin a country and examples abound. Zambia itself has a simmering chequered past ethnically under the veneer of peace and peppered over with half-hearted slogans of One Zambia, One Nation and President Lungu’s campaign hoodies.
Bembas are the largest ethnic group (21 per cent) followed at a distance by Tongas (13.6 per cent). The rest of the Zambian population is shared in smaller percentages of less than 10 per cent per ethnic group. Here are some: Chewa (7.4 per cent), Lozi (5.7 per cent), Nsenga (5.3 per cent), Tumbuka (4.4 per cent), Ngoni (4 per cent), Lala (3.1 per cent), Kaonde (2.9 per cent), Namwanga (2.8 per cent), Lunda (2.6 per cent), Mambwe (2.5 per cent), Luvale (2.2 per cent), Lamba (2.1 per cent), Ushi (1.9 per cent), Lenje (1.6 per cent), Bisa (1.6 per cent), and Mbunda (1.2 per cent). This means the rest of the groups (55) share the remaining 14 per cent of the population. Many people from Luapula identify themselves as Bemba. For purposes of this article, I will use ‘Bemba’ as a shorthand for Chishinga (0.5 per cent), Ng’umbo (0.6 per cent), Lunda (0.9 per cent), Ushi, Bisa, and Bemba people. No offense intended. This means ‘Bembas’ are 26.5 per cent. To be less clumsy, let us just say, for every group of 100 Zambians, 27 are Bemba. Let us now juxtapose these numbers with Lungu’s cabinet.
The National Assembly website lists 30 cabinet ministers. Let us focus on these. Of the thirty, 60 per cent (18) are Bemba. This is twice over the ideal proportional 25 per cent (or 8) cabinet positions. Their cousins collectively known as Easterners (Tumbuka, Chewa, Ngoni, Nsenga) go home with a fair 20 per cent of the cabinet matching their 21 per cent collective share of the national population. The cousins together gobble up nearly 80 per cent of the cabinet positions leaving the remaining 20 per cent cabinet positions to six ethnic groups while the rest (57) representing 36 per cent of the population walk away empty-handed. These include the Tonga who are nearly 14 per cent of the country’s population.
Numbers do not lie. This is what marginalisation looks like. Cabinet is a microcosm of the picture of resource distribution in this country. It shapes and mirrors who is getting the big jobs or contracts in government, parastatals, and grant-aided institutions. The cabinet domination by two ethnic groups and the absence of the Tonga group corroborates anecdotes of Tonga people being wrongly retired or transferred. Our situation is an epic failure of the art and science of politics by Lungu and his administration.
If you were looking for a country where the leadership is creating two nations in one, you would stop looking once you observe the ethnic numbers in the Zambian cabinet and its concomitant skewed distribution of jobs, goods, and services. Although Zambia has the reputation of a peace oasis in the region, its nationhood is precarious at best. The nation cannot be stitched together through tokenism of a road here and a clinic there in regions of excluded ethnic groups. You cannot pepper over ethnic marginalisation and resultant group grievances through a slogan on a national broadcaster (ZNBC) that features no Tonga cabinet minister or opposition leader Hakainde Hichilema. Nation-building needs a conscious, honest, open, and full-spirited effort at ethnic inclusiveness at all levels from the top. What we get from the Lungu administration is ethnic cynicism, social ethnic cleansing, and condescension against the Tonga. He is happy provided his ‘nation’ is safe with Mwine Lubemba and Nkosi yama Nkosi cheerleading him for their own invidious personal benefits.
Replies to some objections
Some people may reply to my argument against ostensible ethnic imbalance in President Lungu’s cabinet by saying the President can only pick those members of the PF at his disposal from the National Assembly. As there are no Tongas at his disposal, his hands are tied. It is no wonder cabinet does not have any Tonga person. You make the omelette with the eggs you have. This argument appears a valid one. But we must ask whether it rests on facts. Are there no Tongas at Lungu’s disposal?
There are four categories of MPs. Elected under the Patriotic Front, those elected under some opposition political parties, those elected as independents, and those (8) nominated by the President. Let us rule out appointing from the United Party for National Development (UPND). Beginning with the nominated positions. What does Lungu do with these? He nominates four Bembas. There is nothing special about these individuals that similarly or better qualified individuals could not be found. And as everyone knows now, the Ministry of National Guidance and Religious Affairs for which Godfridah Sumaili was nominated is a complete waste of money we do not have. It is obscene to have a ministry to simply monitor what Millennials and Generation Z are wearing and utter blasphemous claims that Jesus is in the PF boat.
So, if Lungu cared for the nation; if he did not harbour thinly veiled disdain for Tonga people, he would have picked (some of) those four of the eight nominees from Tonga land and not Bemba land. And here it comes: the Bembas he nominated were all for cabinet positions. The real thing. The Tonga nominee, Dr Edify Hamukale, is excellently suited culturally, academically, and professionally for the Ministry of Agriculture or for the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries. Ministries that are crucial for an agricultural region Edify hails from and of great symbolic importance to its people. (Can you compare Edify to Katambo or Luo?) This regional leveraging would be great for both our nation and country alike. But no. Lungu’s tokenism could only propel Edify (or his counterparts, Nathaniel Mubukwanu and Kapita) as far as provincial minister. Even if Lungu wanted to nominate some people living with disabilities (which he did not), there are such people who are Tonga. The same for any special underrepresented group.
Perhaps you think I am making a big fuss. Lungu can only do so much with eight constitutionally permissible nomination slots. But compound this with the fact that Lungu has independents to pick from who would be less problematic to appoint than opposition MPs. There is a well-qualified trio from underrepresented regions: George Imbuwa (BSc.), Mbololwa Subulwa (BA), and Machila Jamba (Dip. Land Survey). Zero excuse. The ethnic hegemony is in plain sight.
Last words
Bembas who are 27 per cent of the country’s population and Tongas who are 14 per cent of the national population have, respectively, 60 per cent and 0 per cent, representation in cabinet. Lungu has two ways to ‘nationalise’ cabinet – nominations and independents. But he does not. A third way I have not delved into is at candidate selection/adoption for competitive and low-hanging ethnically neutral constituencies. But that is more difficult and beyond my article’s word count.
Given Lungu has not taken the opportunities open to him to make a more ethnically balanced cabinet, there is a prima facie case that he is deliberately overshadowing the Tonga in national governance and corollary unfairly depriving them of the national goods (that includes jobs). Yet he swore on the Holy Bible to respect the Constitution that proscribes discrimination based on ethnicity. It does not matter who voted for who. The veiled and unveiled jabs and jibes by Lungu and some Bembas in PF on the campaign trail fortify this case. We are seeing a weaponisation of ethnicity that most of us alive today have not witnessed before.
My ethnicity argument against Lungu would be less relevant and would have less bite if he had a stellar cabinet. But Lungu’s cabinet is far from meritorious. Bwalya Ng’andu cuts a lonely, soaked figure in there. Lungu could fire just about everyone today and constitute a much better cabinet (professionally, ethically, and academically) from current PF backbenchers, independents, and nominees. Just remember this is a group whose many members are so clueless or spineless that in a couple of weeks they must pay back circa K60,000 each having been misled by the president’s primary school misreading of the Constitution. Since the current cabinet is mediocre despite Lungu having better options within and outside the PF party, this points to one thing. The President is the PF’s Achilles’ heel and a threat to the nation.
There is little doubt Hakainde Hichilema will revamp the economy that the PF cabinet has landed in ICU. He has the capacity and commitment. The question is how will Bally fix the ethnicity fracture caused by Lungu at cabinet level and beyond? It is no easy or solo task and requires all women and men of good will to openly and boldly introspect and debate. In unity and harmony, we can soar above current ethnic exclusionism and supremacism by a few greedy men.
Julius Kapembwa, PhD
The author is a lecturer in Critical Thinking and Ethics at the University of Zambia