|
|
|
 |
 
THE CHURCH, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE EMANCIPATION OF AFRICA -- The Zambian CaseOctober 9, 2007 The alleged pull out of the church from the National Constitutional Conference (NCC) would be considered unfortunate and in every sense retrogressive. The church in Zambia has always played a vital role in matters of conflict resolution and especially, between ruling parties and the opposition. Being an impartial entity, the church's credentials to mediate in sensitive national issues are unequalled. Today, as the church, we are in the dock to apply the same counsel we give to others to ourselves. A conflict involves more than one player, and can only be resolved on the basis of give and take. By boycotting the conference, the Church is doing what it does best: exclude itself from political processes that define public policy for many years to come. Unless the moral majority aggressively engages in constitutional reforms, its role will always be limited to a reactionary voice. Zambia is at yet another threshold: to come up with a new constitution which will influence the way elections will be held, who qualifies to contest for public office and how the nation shall be governed in the fourth republic. We recently heard that the Oasis forum has announced its pull out from the NCC. The forum is composed of three distinctive groups; the Church, the Law association of Zambia ( LAZ) and the NGOCC. On the legitimacy of the pull out, I will restrict my comments to the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ), which forms part of the church grouping, the other two being, the Christian Council of Zambia (CCZ) and the Episcopal Conference. If the EFZ is part of the announced pull out, I would question the legitimacy of such an action. The EFZ like any other mother body draws its strength from its membership. In reaching consensus in such an important national issue, the constituency of the EFZ must be thoroughly consulted before any position is announced. Victory Ministries (of which I am leader) with close to seventy congregations in Zambia is a member of the EFZ. We are not aware of any literature or information seeking our input concerning the NCC. So, to claim that the "church" has pulled out would be misleading. What each individual entity, which forms part of the Oasis forum needs to do, is to emulate LAZ which has convened a meeting of its members to assume a consensus position on the constitutional process. In a democracy, the privilege to participate or not participate in any process is the preserve of every individual and institution. It is therefore within the ambits of the democratic process for any stake holder to pull out especially if they feel very strongly that their concerns are not addressed. I have followed the Constitutional debate from 2002 when President Mwanawasa took over office. I joined its implementation when I assumed office as Vice-President in 2003. I have remained engaged in the process even outside office. My personal view which is also supported by historic evidence is that to boycott the NCC is retrogressive and will not add any value to the quality of life of our people. In 1996 prior to the Presidential and parliamentary elections, there was a similar Constitutional stand-off between the ruling Movement for Multi Party Democracy (MMD) and the opposition parties. United National Independence Party (UNIP) decided as a result, to boycott the 1996 general election. I was one of the Church leaders who were tasked to bring reconciliation and encourage UNIP to remain within the process even if it only meant to field parliamentary Candidates, since Dr. Kaunda had been barred by the new Constitution. I remember how we shuttled between State House and Dr. Kaunda's Kalundu residence to encourage the two sides to find consensus. UNIP took a position they considered reasonable in the circumstances and boycotted the elections against the advice of the church leaders. The elections took place with the late Dean Mungomba's ZADECO legitimizing the election. That single decision by UNIP to boycott the elections reduced our founding party to a back yard party and it has since never recovered. Although I agreed with Dr. Kaunda and UNIP on the unfairness of the clause to exclude his candidacy, I was still of the view that UNIP should have gone ahead and participated in the elections. I am sure the political landscape could have been different by now. Today we have gone full circle. The temptation to boycott the NCC is great. But is it a worth while risk to take? We have been this way before with disastrous results. What makes us think that if we boycott today the results will be different from those in 1996? Is our stand suggesting that every detail has been agreed upon by all stake holders? Far from it. The National Constitutional Act of 2007, has several weaknesses, and one hopes that such weaknesses can be addressed before the conference sits. Our pre-occupation should be to aggressively engage government on these issues we feel strongly about in order to prepare for a successful Constitutional Conference. The goal of every Zambian should be to produce a new Constitution which shall be supported by all Zambians as being birthed out of a fair process. The irony of a faulty process is that, even if we were to come up with an 'excellent' constitution at the end of the day, if the process is controversial, the resultant document will not be respected and will have to be re-done by the next government. This is what we must avoid. National Conferences all over Africa have been both sensitive and controversial. Most governments, although they are open to allow such conferences, choose to keep relative control on the process to avoid excesses and what others fear as national security risk. Many examples abound. Out of a list of fifty African countries in 1989, almost all were one- party states or military dictatorships. Opposition parties were illegal in thirty two states. Elections, when held, served mainly to confirm the incumbent president and his party in power. In twenty nine countries, over the course of 150 elections held between 1960 and 1989, opposition parties were never allowed to win a single seat - only Senegal, Gambia, and Botswana sustained multi party politics, holding regular elections considered free and fair. Unrest and chaos in these one party states forced most of the "Big Man" rule nations to concede to holding national constitutional Conferences to create multi party States. In short, a political system which allows the participation of all citizens without fear of being jailed or killed or both. A national conference like our NCC is like government sharing power with unelected individuals for the life of the conference. These individuals will make national decisions and sometimes at the expense of the government in power. One such example is that of the small West African state of Benin. Its military leader, Mathieu Kerekou and his associates were accused of having looted the state owned banking system. Three banks had collapsed in 1988 as a result of large unsecured loans awarded to members of Kerekou's inner circle and bogus companies they had set up, amounting in sum, according to the World Bank, to $500million. When the nation became unmanageable, a national Conference was called. The Conference was held in February 1990, its proceedings broadcast live on Radio and Television, turned into a searing indictment of the venality and corruption of Kerekou's military regime. The 488 delegates, presided over by Archbishop Isodore de Souza, declared themselves to hold sovereign power, suspended the constitution, dissolved the national assembly, appointed a former World Bank official, Nicephore Soglo, as prime minister of an interim government and laid down a schedule for elections. Kerekou was allowed to stay on as interim President. In the election that followed, Soglo stood against Kerekou, defeating him by a resounding margin of two to one. Other National Conferences were held in Abidjan, Zaire, and Ghana. The conferences in Togo and Gabon were most dramatic. But all this drama was part of the cost to change African constitutions from one party to multi party states. Such a scenario does not arise in Zambia. The decision to review our constitution is a long time dream for all Zambians. To our credit in Zambia, after the 1986 food riots, the people of Zambia demanded for a multi party state. On December 4th 1990, President Kaunda repealed the constitution without either a national conference or referendum and granted a multi party state. This remains a memorable time for all Zambians, myself in particular as I was privileged to have been the guest of the president at state house at this pivotal time in Zambian history. I had been invited to share from the scriptures and to be in prayer with the President, encouraging him to do what was right for Zambia). The president further cut his term of office by two years and called for early elections in October 1991, in which he was defeated by Fredrick Chiluba of the MMD - by a landslide of 76%. Today, the protest is not against the one party state. It is about putting in place laws that shall effectively create institutions, distribute power, and create a practical, fair and workable electoral process which shall not be manipulated by either government or any other stake holder. This is a move to strengthen democracy. At the center of this democratic alignment is the Constitution. The President appointed the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) in 2003. The Committee obtained submissions from all the nine provinces of Zambia at great cost to the tax payer. They prepared a draft constitution which must now be tabled by the National Constitutional Conference. A referendum is proposed as the next step before enacting the new constitution by the National Assembly. If any stake holder boycotts the process at this stage, the conference will still take place, as there are no vacuums in politics. The losers will be the ordinary Zambians that could have benefited from the intelligent input of every stake holder, especially the church. Zambia having been declared a Christian nation, gives me hope that we shall overcome this temporal barrier. The church must not be left behind. As the church, we no longer have the luxury of absenting ourselves from our post of duty as we did in the past. We must engage. We must fight for the future of our nations. Faith without works is dead. The scripture is clear when it comes to issues of dispute and conflict. We are admonished in the Book of Isaiah to “come, let us reason together.” That is, in my opinion, the best and most effective way of ensuring that the decisions that are made are legitimate and has taken into account the thoughts and opinions of all parties concerned. Without a coming together of key players especially regarding an issue as important as that of the constitution of our nation, we risk participating in a flawed decision making process. The church is a key player and will remain so. The church must engage and remained engaged in this process. The voice of the people of Zambia who make up the church must be represented in the constitutional review process and be heard. • Back |
|
| ©2010 Nevers Mumba. All rights reserved. |
