President Edgar Lungu has appealed to politicians not to offer traditional leaders whisky and dollars next year during campaigns in a bid to win votes from them. Is Edgar telling us that it is possible to buy our chiefs’ political support during election campaigns with whisky and dollars? If so, why? If it is possible for politicians to buy our chiefs’ political support with whisky and dollars, then there is a very serious problem. Edgar merely appealing to the politicians not to buy our chiefs’ political support with whisky and dollars cannot solve such a problem. Appealing to our chiefs not to allow themselves to be bought with whisky and dollars may also not do. Our chiefs are beset by many problems. We should not forget that the local and central governments took their sources of income away. Our traditional authorities used to receive part of the taxes levied on their subjects.
This helped them to run their kingdoms and chiefdoms. The highest paid traditional ruler in this country gets about K6,000 per month. The others, on average, are paid K4,500 per month. This is the money they should use to look after their families and run their palaces! And we shouldn’t forget that most of our chiefs, as per custom and tradition, have more than one wife and many children. Is what they are paid enough to take care of all this responsibility? And who says chiefs don’t also want to drink whisky like Edgar? If whisky is good for Edgar, it is also good for the chiefs. Why should they refuse some whisky if it’s given to them? Edgar has free whisky bought for him by the taxpayer. If the same was done for the chiefs, no politician would be able to buy their support with a bottle of whisky. And why shouldn’t chiefs receive dollars from politicians when the President himself is receiving gifts of all sorts of money from all sorts of people? Does Edgar refuse the money that is given to him?
Today Edgar has more money than his earned income from his job as President of the Republic and from the businesses he was running before going to State House. Where is that money coming from? Is it not ‘gifts’? The issue of politicians buying the political support of chiefs with whisky and dollars cannot be addressed in the way Edgar seems to be suggesting. The welfare of our chiefs and their establishments needs to be taken care of in a more dignified manner than through charity and other donations by well-wishers. If we want our chiefs to be politically independent and dignified, we need to give them some form of financial independence as well.
There is no doubt our chiefs do a lot of work in terms of administering justice and other issues in their chiefdoms. In some of our areas, the only visible authority our people know is that of chiefs. They don’t see any signs of the local or central government. All they see are their chiefs and the indunas. If we feel that our chiefs have value and their institutions need to be preserved, we need to finance their existence through the local or central government. If this is not possible, then let’s allow them to levy taxes in their chiefdoms and from their subjects. There is too much patronising talk about chiefs that leads to nothing but their increasing dependence on politicians, especially those in government. Many things need to change in the way we treat our chiefs and their establishments.
There is so much that has been taken away from our chiefs. We have an article in our Constitution that takes away an inalienable right of our chiefs. Under Article 129 of our Constitution “A person shall not, while remaining a chief, join or participate in partisan politics”. Why should this be so? This is not the only thing that has been taken away from our chiefs. In addition to this, our chiefs’ sources of income have also been taken away from them. The taxes levied in their chiefdoms and on their subjects are all taken by the government, leaving them with nothing but a paltry monthly salary. And to receive this small salary, they have to first be recognised by the President.
When our liberation generation was fighting for the independence of this country, chiefs were not excluded from partisan politics. They were actually at the centre of our partisan politics. One does not become a chief by choice or election. One becomes a chief by birth - something one has totally no control over. Why should that be used as a basis to deny one his or her citizenship rights of belonging to a political party of his or her choice? All the time, our chiefs are being patronised in all sorts of ways to support certain political parties and candidates. Even in the last presidential election, we saw how chiefs were mobilised to endorse or support certain candidates.
That is found to be acceptable. There isn’t much chiefs are benefitting from being chiefs that should warrant their surrender or denial of such fundamental or inalienable rights. Apart from those who are selling their people’s land and other rights, very few of our chiefs are living well. The allowances or salaries they get from government are too low. Even on the issue of land rights, our chiefs today do not have much say over their people’s land because it’s all vested in the President. Given this situation, what are chiefs for?
Why continue to have institutions we don’t value? If we really valued our traditional institutions, we would put more resources into them. The office of a district commissioner is far better resourced than that of a paramount chief. Even the respect we pretend to give to chiefs, it is nothing but a mockery. What the chiefs need is not the President kneeling before them, attempting to show some fake or useless respect. Real respect lies in financial, economic and legal empowerment.
That’s what our chiefs need because it is only in this way that they can deliver the leadership required by their people and expected of them by the nation. If things don’t change, our chiefs will continue receiving bottles of whisky and some small envelopes of dollars from all sorts of corrupt and unscrupulous politicians to win their political support during election campaigns. If our political leaders themselves can be bought, can hire themselves to those with money, why should that not be so with our chiefs? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!
No comments:
Post a Comment