ZAMBIANS POOR AT ELECTING GOOD LEADERS BUT GOOD AT REMOVING BAD ONES – DR SISHUWA SISHUWA
He writes in the following excerpt:
Major concerns have also emerged about Hichilema’s commitment to fighting corruption. To begin with, the president has refused to publish the value of his assets despite being elected a platform of accountability and transparency. Along with Lungu, he is the only major party nominee to fail to do so since the return to multiparty democracy in 1991. This is especially concerning as Zambian presidents have generally used state power to accumulate wealth. There is no evidence Hichilema has done so, but his reluctance to release his net worth is concerning given his extensive business interests. This makes it difficult to work out to what extent his economic policies are benefiting companies in which he has an interest.
At the same time, Hichilema has resisted passing a law on access to information (ATI) that would enhance government transparency and assist the media and civil society in fighting corruption. Such a law has been promised by successive governments who have then dragged their feet over the last three decades. Hichilema’s has now joined them. In over a year, his administration has not even got as far as producing a Draft Bill. This reluctance may arise from fears among political elites that such a law would make available information – especially on procurement and asset declarations – that would make corruption easier to observe.
Finally, Hichilema has ignored accusations of corruption in his own government. When opposition parties presented evidence of executive involvement in an inflated fertiliser contract awarded to one of the president’s business associates, for instance, Hichilema kept quiet. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), which now sits under the president’s office, also looked away. When the Minister of Health Sylvia Masebo got embroiled in what appears to be a major corruption scandal, Hichilema and the ACC again said nothing.
In Zambia, there is a growing perception that Hichilema is promoting ethnic discrimination, ignoring corruption, mismanaging an already poor economy, undermining democratic institutions, and serving as a stooge of foreign mining companies and Western countries. Already, many ordinary people have concluded that Hichilema is not the leader they thought he was. The government may have co-opted civil society members who spoke truth to power under Lungu, elicited the silence of the West, and scared ordinary people from speaking out for fear of arrest, but the people are becoming more critical.
Regrettably, however, Hichilema appears to pay more attention to the voice of a particular constituency in South Africa, Europe, and North America than those who elected him. This strategy may come back to haunt him. As former archbishop Mpundu warned, “a government that doesn’t listen to the people, sooner rather than later goes out…People are a sovereign element in the running of the country.”
Indeed, while Zambians may be poor at choosing good leaders, they are good at removing bad ones. It was arguably the calamity of Lungu that pushed people to breaking point and made Hichilema look like a better alternative. Despite basking in foreign approval, the current president risks becoming Zambia’s first to suffer electoral defeat after serving only one term unless he takes a long hard look at himself.
