The newly elected Zambian President Michael Sata, talking to the press.
Results for the presidential elections held in Zambia last week are just in and Zambia has a new president in Michael Sata of the Patriotic Front. He beat the incumbent president Rupiah Banda of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy.
The Zambians have again shown the rest of Africa that the holding of elections must not always end in bloodshed. Sata had everything against him since he was an opposition candidate.
The handling of the Zambian elections has some very vital and interesting lessons for any one who has an interest in the democratization process in Africa. The conduct of the elections and the peaceful hand-over of power by Banda to Sata have both positive and negative sides to it.
The way the incumbent president conceded defeat and congratulated the winner is worthy emulating by other leaders in Africa who have a penchant for sticking to power even when it is evident that the people they lead are thinking otherwise. Coming in the backdrop of what we have seen lately in other African countries like Ivory Coast and Libya, this is very reassuring that indeed all hope is not lost for Africa.
These happenings show that we still have men and women of dignity who are ready to concede defeat and allow the rule of law to take its course. Congratulations are in order for the president. I am encouraged by the fact that the outgoing president even wished the new president well saying that he hoped that his (Sata’s) policies will bear fruit. This truly shows that the outgoing president understands that the country is more important and bigger than its leaders. Leaders will come and go but countries and institutions will remain to serve the people. That is how it should be.
Here in Kenya, we still have the ugly memories of 2007 / 2008 when a dispute about presidential election results degenerated into what some have called a genocide, whose repercussions we feel up to date. Right now, a number of Kenyans are facing trial in the International Criminal Court in The Hague for alleged crimes against humanity for what happened in the country at that time.
The sad events that happened in Kenya were a result of failed leadership, where leaders think that they are more important than the country and thus they can do anything to either acquire power or hang on to power.
On the flip side, the negative part of the Zambian election process was seen in the media. Prior to the victory of Sata, the state-run newspapers Zambia Daily Mail, Times of Zambia and the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation were all in support of the incumbent president but changed tune immediately the results were announced.
We have seen this happening in Kenya too through the state-funded Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, which for many years has been seen to be a ruling party tool for propaganda especially during election periods. This is not peculiar to Kenya alone. It happens in numerous other African countries.
The kind of hero worship that is seen in the media in many parts of the continent is giving the profession a bad name. The media is supposed to be a neutral player and it should give all the parties in a contest fair and equal coverage.
It was reported that an anonymous journalist from one of the state-run media houses in Zambia, when asked about the sudden change of tune by the state media outlets said that they “work with the government of the day.” What crap!
A state organ is supposed to speak for the citizens of a country since it is funded by the public coffers. In a political duel the kind that was witnessed in Zambia, both the ruling party candidate and the opposition candidate needed to have an equal share of space in the public-funded media outlets. Both politicians in the opposition and in government are tax payers and thus they need equal access to coverage.
The other negative thing about the Zambian elections had to do with the number of those who came out to vote. It has been reported that out of 5.2 million Zambians who registered as voters, it is only 2.8 million voters who actually voted in last week’s polls. This means that nearly half of all those who were eligible to vote did not do so. This is very worrying indeed. It means that voter apathy is still a big part of the electoral process in Africa. This has been seen in many other parts of Africa where we have had elections.
There are a number of African countries that are scheduled to elect new leaders this year. Should this trend be seen in the rest of the African countries, it would be worrying because it means that a few people in a country are making decisions on behalf of millions of others who don’t make their voice to be heard by refusing to vote.
It may not be known why people who have registered to vote would hesitate to vote when elections comes. There could be many reasons. Experts in election matters like Koki Muli of Kenya and others from the rest of Africa need to carry out a survey to find out why such a large number of people would shun going to elect their leaders when they had previously indicated that they would like to vote by registering as voters. By failing to undertake their civic responsibility of voting, such people are allowing bad leaders to assume leadership when they could change that by their votes.
As Kenyans and Africans, let us aspire to emulate the good from the Zambian elections and shun the bad that has been reported from Zambia. Leaders in particular need to learn that you can always live to fight another day after loosing an election.
Comments