Why we need this book
A clear view of the past will give us light
for future decisions. This book is factual and honest, highlighting the good and
the bad in our history. For too long we have lived in denial of certain events,
preferring to dream up a glossy “golden age” version of history. This account
brings out the humanity of our leaders, showing their courage, prudence, resilience
and moments of weakness. I found it most valuable for its information on Zambia’s
early years, history which is hard to find in a single volume, until now.
He begins by responding to the assertion that
we gained independence too soon. The colonizing authority was not preparing us
to rule ourselves. This is clear from the woeful neglect of education. “In
1945, out of a total of 1,112 schools in the country 1,062 were run by
missionaries, 28 by government and 23 by native authorities.” If there were no
missionaries, think how much worse the education scenario would have been
before independence! The colonial authorities had every intention of ruling
Zambia forever.
Education was the number one priority with
the independent government. The improvements made in those few early years were
phenomenal. “By 1968, primary school enrollment was twice as high as that of
1964, while the secondary school enrollment was three times as high. And in 1966
the University of Zambia (UNZA) opened its Ridgeway Campus followed by the
opening of the Great East Road Campus in March 1968.” We were making strides in
the right direction. Other challenges would prove to be more difficult.
Economic freedom?
Issues of business and economics proved to
be more complex, if not more difficult. The economic activity largely remained
in the hands of the same companies and individuals as before independence.
Because so few Zambians had been educated, many employees in the civil service
were also from outside Zambia. Farming was also a challenge, as there were
hardly any local commercial farmers, so there was another learning curve,
encouraging local farmers to grow on a scale that would help feed the nation. Meanwhile,
many of those holding the economic power were skeptical, if not outright
malicious, when it came to the efforts of the new government to empower the
nation.
The Mulungushi reforms were an attempt to
get local Zambians involved in the economic activities of the nation.
Government intervention in economic activity is not entirely unknown in other
countries, even in the West, and ownership restrictions (such as requiring partnership
with local entrepreneurs) is not as unreasonable as some claim. The author
boldly refutes the claims in an article by Hugh Macmillan in the book “One
Zambia many histories”, that the Mulungushi reforms were entirely negative. He
raises serious questions about Macmillan’s perspective and sources.
Regional struggles and the railway line
When Ian Smith’s government unilaterally
declared independence from Britain, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) fell under
sanctions which had a heavy toll on Zambia’s economy. Zambia desperately needed
new supply routes and strategies for basic commodities and fuel. When Kenneth
Kaunda wrote to the British prime minister asking for assistance building a
pipeline and railway line, the prime minister replied “the pipeline would cost
£45 million and take three years to build. The railway would cost many hundreds
of millions and the survey alone would take three years.” These projections
would be proven wrong. “We built a pipeline in 16 months at a cost of £16 million
and the Chinese built for us a first class railway within three years”. It took
courage and imagination to tackle those early problems.
The role of Kenneth Kaunda in the
independence struggles in the region cannot go without mention. Even though
some decisions may be criticized, the overall result is undeniable. “Without
his taking such a firm and unequivocal stand, without offering shelter to the
independence movements of Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa and their
guerrilla forces the complete liberation of Africa before the end of the
twentieth century would not have been achieved.”
Trouble brewing
Wrangles within UNIP would prove to be
first step in the wrong direction. When Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe opted to break
away from UNIP and form his own party, UPP, he had, at best, a regional
following, much like ANC in southern province. Dr Kaunda over reacted to this challenge,
having opponents locked up, when he could have simply allowed the protest to
run its course and be vindicated by his policies and efforts.
In the name of
maintaining national unity, a “one party participatory democracy” was
introduced. At the signing of the “Choma declaration” in 1973, the opposition party ANC was absorbed into UNIP. Harry Mwangala Nkumbula, the former ANC leader, withdrew from public life. This was the beginning of an era of more autocratic rule, in
which technocrats were side-lined for political expedience. Many financial
decisions were made that should have been first analysed by the financial
experts. One thing led to another, and the economy suffered.
Coups attempts – two wrongs
The author agonizes over some of his friends
who decided to take part in an ill-fated coup attempt. The desperate act would
lead to much pain for those involved, who viewed themselves as martyrs for a
good cause. But as the author notes, “there is nothing heroic about a coup. It
is evil and usually leads to greater suffering than the one it is supposed to
alleviate, often for decades to come. We have had many examples of coups in
Africa and elsewhere and I cannot recollect one that can be described as
beneficial; its consequences were never greater democracy and better governance
but harsher dictatorship and chaos.” When he tried to discern the motive behind
their actions, he could only conclude it was a moment of weakness.
In the mean time, decisions which required technical skill were increasingly made by political figures within UNIP. The mechanics of an economy were ignored, at great cost to the average Zambian.
Democracy revisited
When people cried out for a return to
multi-party democracy and for change, it is to Kaunda’s credit that he graciously
made plans for elections. The author doesn't give the late president Chiluba
any credit for this feat. “That credit must go to the people of Zambia… and
they achieved it is in an amazingly peaceful fashion”. However, he credits Chiluba with
opening up the economy, but also with killing small industries and suffocating
agricultural sector.
On the other hand, he credits the Mwanawasa
government with improving agriculture and attaining the HIPC benchmarks. Beyond
that he feels the “sainthood” of Mwanawasa was exaggerated. He provides an
insight into the strengths and weakness of each administration. He has much to say on the mines, the windfall
tax and the Barotse agreement that is insightful, and he has in depth criticism
of decisions on both fronts. He wraps up with comments on the current head of
state.
Full circle to education
Towards the end of the book, he comments on
the education, which is still our greatest need. Access
has greatly improved over the years (when you consider where we started from),
but there is still room for improvement in terms of quantity and quality. He
quotes the 2011 Educational Statistical Bulletin: “Enrollment in grades 1-9
totaled 3, 478, 898 while enrollment in grades 10-12 totaled 251,632, in other
words only 1 in 14 children make it to secondary schools and of those only
9,031 obtained a certificate, i.e., only 1 in 39 children enrolled in grades
1-9 are likely to get a grade 12 certificate.”
The statistics look frightening, but the
author is also optimistic. If we are ready to learn lessons from the past, we
can forge a better future. We should learn to take criticism as part and parcel of our daily journey, so that we
can correct wrong turns much sooner. There is nothing to be gained from trying
to win every argument. But there is much to be gained if we are ready to use
our collective skill and knowledge to make a better Zambia. I highly recommend you add this book to your collection.
