Chief Puta's recent criticism of the House of Chiefs, for not respecting the decisions of council of chiefs is damning indictment of our system of governance. Puta's statement that "…such things were reducing the council of chiefs to mere white elephants because their decisions were not taken seriously..." cannot be ignored in our quest to develop as a nation. It calls for a critical assessment of whether as a nation we are wasting money in having a House of Chiefs, and if the answer is yes, how we should approach reform to ensure that the House of Chiefs contributes towards development.
From Chief Puta's statements it is clear the second chamber is not functioning as it should, and in fact continues to drain resources from the national coffers that could be used for the fight against poverty. Most of the members are illiterate, and to make it worse they lack the powers they need to be motivated into taking the House matters seriously. The only alternative is reform, and this reform must embody two elements.
First, we must recognise that the notion of development and culture are interlinked. Our quest for development must not come at the expense of weakening our cultural institutions but rather development should come through a greater affirmation of our traditions and bringing them to the centre. If this logical premise is accepted then, Chiefs who are the very heart of our traditions must be recognised as having a primary role to play in our quest for development, and in defining that development.
Secondly, we must work to reinforce these traditions within a constitutional framework. We should seek to ensure that chiefs play a more significant role in local Government, have access to basic level of education supported by Government and then ensure that we have a strong second chamber with real powers to challenge Parliament. It is unfortunate that as a nation we continue the legacy of our colonial masters by sideling traditional systems of governance that served us so well before colonialism.
The natural response to a much stronger House of Chiefs is that it is undesirable because it would be undemocratic. This position is erroneous for two reasons. First, it is built on a presupposition that democracy is an end not a means to an end. Our concern should be development and not democracy. If we can have a less democratic second chamber that is more in tune with the local people, true to our traditional values, and provides perpetual checks on the activities of Parliament, isn't that a move toward development? And that development would be more worthwhile because it would be truly Zambian, built on ideals consistent with our culture. It neatly fuses modern principles of Governance while holding onto the beauty of our heritage. In the end really we will never achieve political or economic independence until we develop a distinctly Zambian idea to solving our economic problems. We are best when we do things in a Zambian way!
Secondly, an unelected person in position of making or approving laws is not always bad. Unelected chiefs are less likely to be swayed by wrong popular sentiments, and would be more sensitive to our traditions. It would be difficult to bribe chiefs compared to MPs.
Until we take this reform forward, Chief Puta and the others will continue to be a wasted resource and the ultimate victim will be the poorest of our society, who will never be reached with a non-Zambian centred idea of development.
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Insights from Chiefs (Chief Puta)
THEMES :
culture,
governance
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
" The natural response to a much stronger House of Chiefs is that it is undesirable because it would be undemocratic. This position is erroneous for two reasons. First, it is built on a presupposition that democracy is an end not a means to an end. Our concern should be development and not democracy. "
ReplyDeleteOk, I think I have that one. The upside of democracy, is that bad governors are turfed out of office on a regular basis. This has at least two effects:
1) Bad government is thrown out within a relatively short timeframe. And that is the biggest drawback to chiefs - they are a hereditary institution. Unless
2) Cozy relationships between business, other officials and politicians are disrupted on a regular basis. The biggest problem in politics is always the fact that the money of business enables it to buy more access and representation than the ordinary citizen, which is a direct attack on the principle of one man one vote. A representative should be there for every individual voter, not for a specific business interest. Most democracies have taken great care to separate business and politics, even to the extent of having their business/economic center and their seat of government in different cities. The seat of government is often put in an obscure litte town (Canberra versus Sidney in Australia, Brasilia versus Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, Munich versus Berlin in Germany, The Hague versus Amsterdam or Rotterdam in Holland, Brussels versus Antwerp in Belgium, Washington DC versus New York City in the USA, etc.)
3) Social conservatism. In a time when we want to modernize social relationships, chiefs might not be willing to curb the more extreme cultural practices of their subjects.
4) Democracy. Do people in rural areas in Zambia really want to be ruled by anyone, let alone an unelected chief? Is there a social/economic function that cannot be performed by a local government official, who is bound to be a local anyway? This would become even more pertinent when we see the emergence of a large middle class - people with their own ambitions and dreams.
" If we can have a less democratic second chamber that is more in tune with the local people, true to our traditional values, and provides perpetual checks on the activities of Parliament, isn't that a move toward development? "
I always like the American senate a lot more than the House Of Lords. I think it is a good thing to have two elected chambers providing checks and balances on eachother. Remember that the House Of Lords only became a little less dominated by Conservatives, when they started to appoint Life Peers. Before that, it was almost completely dominated by the Conservative Party, which was always unfair to the voters.
I would like to suggest an alternative. If Zambia had 350 Local Government Units (councils) of 30,000 people, with a budget of $1 million or more each, and elected a Council Leader for each one, that would mean that:
1) a local could have access to a budget of $1 million per year to provide basic services (education, healthcare, security, public amenities, which would all be mandated by the constitution), and have some money left for solving local issues - which is where Participatory Budgeting would come in.
2) this Local Council Leader (the modern equivalent of a headman, but with the full backing of the state) would be a local - unlike MPs he would actually live in the council; he would speak the local language; he would have local knowledge and be able to understand the developmental priorities. In short, he would almost act like a community activist.
Defacto, the Local Council Leader would be more important than an MP. He would be a lot more relevant to the actual local people than the President of the Republic.
All of this is not to say that there is no place for the Chiefs. I just don't see (yet?) what their role in government should be. Most of the chiefs are illiterate. It would take ages to get them or their children up to speed.
There should be minimum standards for this position - like a college degree and an IQ test (only barely kidding - I think at least 150 million Americans wish that was a requirement for the Presidency right now. :) ).
However, in case they are not... Chiefs should be free to run for Local Council Leader. Maybe that is the compromise. This way, if the people have a great Chief, who is well respected and loved locally, they could easily vote him or her in. They would have the advantage of prestige and name recognition. If he was bad at governance, he would be voted out like anyone else, circumventing that particular downside of hereditary leadership.
And I'm not giving a blueprint prescription here, I'm just leading us down the path of what is most likely to work. Of course, we have to always be flexible and sensitive.
Well articulated!
ReplyDelete1 .I think you are right that there are pros and cons in each position.
2. Your suggestion of locally autonomous elected officials with real budgetary power is exciting, assuming we still recognise that Central Government still has a coordinating role to play in mantaining macro economic policy, tackling inequality and taking forward much larger projects, where coordination is needed across the 30,000 units.
3. Your system is very much similar to the swiss regional system. But as always I would add that participatory budgeting must be there!! Although the voting mechanism is a step in the right direction. The swiss system is based on local referendums which is similar. I would also say, it does sound like you are advocating much stronger mayors?
4. Now on chiefs, I do see some merit in your arguments. But I also think that people who are not elected have more of a long term vision and pander less to changing agendas. Also unelected officials perhaps cannot be easily corrupted - although the literature evidence on this is unclear.
5. Which ever compromise we adopt I think we still need to answer the central question : how do we reflect culture in development? How do we make sure that our culture is not eroded at the expense of economic growth? How do we make sure that development indeed is culturally consistent? Also, what would be the role of chiefs in the 'compromise' model that you have articulated? Most of the problems Zambia is facing is due to the abandoning of culture and the displacement of traditional authorities. Kids are on the street because we have forgotten that our culture emphasises family. AIDs is a symptom of the traditional breakdown of marriage as an institution etc etc. If we lived true to our traditional values and placed culture at the heart of our social and economic development, we would have more solutions and less problems!!
Interested to hear your views on this.
" 4. Now on chiefs, I do see some merit in your arguments. But I also think that people who are not elected have more of a long term vision and pander less to changing agendas. Also unelected officials perhaps cannot be easily corrupted - although the literature evidence on this is unclear. "
ReplyDeletePeople who are appointed for the long term can have longer term views. And life appointments that can be a huge stabilizing impact on the reliability of an institution, like in the case of judges. However, for a position that is flexible and quickly changing, what is needed is someone young and energetic.
And as to whether or not chiefs can be corrupted - only look at the case of Chief Mpezeni. One moment he is praising Hichilema, the next moment he is visited by two men from the MMD, and he is behind the MMD all the way. I would say unelected officials can be corrupted like anyone else.
" 5. Which ever compromise we adopt I think we still need to answer the central question : how do we reflect culture in development? How do we make sure that our culture is not eroded at the expense of economic growth? How do we make sure that development indeed is culturally consistent? Also, what would be the role of chiefs in the 'compromise' model that you have articulated? Most of the problems Zambia is facing is due to the abandoning of culture and the displacement of traditional authorities. Kids are on the street because we have forgotten that our culture emphasises family. AIDs is a symptom of the traditional breakdown of marriage as an institution etc etc. If we lived true to our traditional values and placed culture at the heart of our social and economic development, we would have more solutions and less problems!! Interested to hear your views on this. "
I think those are just as easy the symptoms of extreme poverty. And maybe the effect of urbanisation.
On the other hand, I think there are many ways in which a 350 local council system could embed cultural values. IF the council had the following unchanging duties: education, healthcare, policing and public amenities, they could get creative with their educational curriculae.
They could also facilitate cultural events, put local history into the school curriculum, etc.
Council meetings could reflect local customs. They could even be attended by a chief or his or her representative.
The difference would be that council decisions would be backed by $1 million (or more) per year.
And this central financing of councils would also limit the need to receive money from local taxes, council charges, etc. Their local proximity would also speed the setting up of businesses, make marriage easier and cheaper, and in short, be far more responsive to local interests.
"People who are appointed for the long term can have longer term views".
ReplyDeleteI agree, but we know that "shortermism" arise where people are having to be voted in every so often. The voting process creates uncertainty on their position which dissuades them from taking a long term view. Classic example is the boom spending that ensues just before elections!
"I would say unelected officials can be corrupted like anyone else".
Yes, your thoughts are quite persuasive there especially Mpezeni. I need to investigate this point further, with respect to the propensitiy for corruption of unelected officials. I'll get back to you on that one!
"I think those are just as easy the symptoms of extreme poverty. And maybe the effect of urbanisation".
I am not so sure. China was relatively poor and it maintained its confucious culture in that period before the new rise of "bling bling" dynasty! Japan a very urbanised nation has not succumbed to the break down of culture and traditional values despite embracing technology and greater urbanisation.
"On the other hand, I think there are many ways in which a 350 local council system could embed cultural values. IF the council had the following unchanging duties: education, healthcare, policing and public amenities, they could get creative with their educational curriculae"
Yes, that is one way. But another way is to ensure that you enshrine cultural development into your educational system and especially in law.
" Japan a very urbanised nation has not succumbed to the break down of culture and traditional values despite embracing technology and greater urbanisation. "
ReplyDeleteJapan was never occupied by western powers, and it took to 'modernization' very quickly.
In China, much of original culture was replaced by communism. The most traditional martial arts styles for instance can be found in Taiwan and Hong Kong. There was a lot of agitation against traditional culture, culminating in the Cultural Revolution.
And the more I think about it, the more I think that Chiefs could play an economic role. If they were both protected and limited by clear rights and penalties, spelled out in the constitution.