THE WEEKLY POST – DECEMBER 11, 1992 BY FRED M’MEMBE

CAN YOU REMEMBER?

BAROTSE AGREEMNET IS A VARIANCE WITH MODERN POLITICAL ORDER

THE WEEKLY POST – DECEMBER 11, 1992 BY FRED M’MEMBE

The debate on the Barotseland agreement 1964 has been on for some weeks now, with media coverage centring mainly on those advocating for its restoration.

Our politicians, including some of the most vocal ones, have been reluctant to make their positions known on the issue, and among the few who have come out openly for the restoration of the agreement is Akashambatwa Mbikusita Lewanika, the movement for multi-party democracy (MMD), member of Parliament for Mongu Central.

Vice President Levy Mwanawasa might have summed the government’s position when he said that the advocacy for the restoration of the agreement were free to take the matter to court, but whatever the decision the court makes would have to be respected by both parties.

Most prominent citizens have refused to comment on the matter openly arguing that their honest comments may appear to threaten national unity.

The Barotse Agreement was a product of political expediency to have Northern Rhodesia to proceed to independence as one country and that all its peoples should be one nation.  Taking into account the civil war which was ragging in the Congo, national unity was a necessity.

There is an urgent need to review our system of provincial governance.  The history of Zambia over the last 28 years on independence shows that the governance of the provinces have never been looked at critically or even discussed. 

Economic development of the provinces, especially the rural ones has not only stagnated by declined and has resulted in the unstoppable drifts to the urban provinces of skilled young men and women.  If this trend is not stopped, the future of the rural provinces is bleak.

An appropriate system of provincial governance needs to be found which can enhance and advance democracy and development and make the young men and women have a meaningful participation in the economic and political life of not only the district councils in which they reside but the provinces as well. 

A survey last June by the weekly Post on how provinces should be governed showed that people wanted more independent administration of the provinces by elected officials and not by deputy minister appointed at the centres.

The Barotseland Agreement authorises and empowers the Litunga, an unelected person, after consultation with his council, to make laws for Barotseland and be the principal local authority for the government and administration of Barotseland.

This system is clearly undemocratic.  It might have made sense in 1964 when the issue at hand was independent and not necessarily democracy.  It will negate the political achievement the people of Zambia have made to date.  For whatever national unity consideration, the Barotseland agreement cannot be restored at the expense of democratic ideals.  Democracy is a more important national ideal to strive for than national unity.  The latter is not the human ideal; it is a matter of political expedience in the struggle for political power.

 The case for the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement has been based on the failure to appreciate that the price of modern political order is calculated on the basis of democracy and human rights, and not obscure customs of convenience.

The political, cultural and economic interests of the people of Western province are far too complex and by far larger than similar interests of the Lozi Royal establishment, the Litunga and his councils and the Indunas combined.  Failure to realise this constitutes part of the explanation why those advocating for the restoration of this Agreement are prepared to waste time and energies on a dead issue which if honoured will only save to restrict rather than broaden democracy in Western Province.

It is negative conservatism to assume and believe that the Litunga and his Council and the Lozi Royal Establishment can have the final and perpetual solution to all the problems of Western Province. Such conservatism has no existential basis.

I hope the MMD government will not make the same mistake the United National Independence Party (UNIP) made of abandoning the goal of the struggle for democracy in favour of an ill-defined quest for national unity.  The people of Western Province like those of all other provinces of Zambia need a better system of Provincial government than they are currently subjected to but definitely not the restoration of the out of tune and outdated Barotseland Agreement monarch type of provincial government.

The issue of concern now is not the issue of the Barotseland Agreement by the advancement of democracy for the whole country.  This is where time and energy should be directed.