WHO will replace Michael Sata as president of the ruling Patriotic Front (PF) party?

Will the PF remain the same after the demise of its founding leader and Republican President?

Will Zambia experience capital flight because investors are unsure of the safety of their investments under a new man or woman in the saddle?

These are some of the qu

estions that must be on many people’s lips as the PF prepares to hold its make-or-break national party conference to elect President Sata’s successor as party leader and its candidate in the January 17 presidential by-election.

Some watchers of the Zambian political scene fear PF might shoot itself in the foot if its leaders currently engaged in a war of attrition, ignore the rules-of-the-game over the tricky and potentially divisive succession issue.

There is a looming danger of PF experiencing the turmoil that afflicted the United National Independence Party (UNIP), and even the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) before and in the run-up to the 2008 by-election that followed President Levy Mwanawasa’s untimely death in a Paris hospital after suffering a stroke while in Cairo, Egypt.

I remember senior MMD leaders like Dr Ludwig Sondashi, protesting vehemently that former “UNIPists” should not be allowed “to hijack MMD”.

Dr Sondashi and others were clearly referring to the likes of President Mwanawasa’s hand-picked vice president Rupiah Banda, once a renowned UNIP activist and diplomat, taking over the leadership of the party at the expense of more “deserving” individuals like himself, Mr Sikota Wina, Mr Akashambatwa Mbikushita-Lewanika, Mr Vernon Mwaanga or Dr Katele Kalumba who were among professionals and academics who pioneered the formation of the MMD that toppled KK and UNIP from power in 1991.

Analysts believe it is the fear of being marginalised (and even pushed out to the periphery by the “relatively newcomers”) that is at the core of the scramble for power that threatening to tear the PF apart.

But who are the new-comers trying to “hijack” the PF from its legitimate ‘owners’?

Where did they come from? Are we being told such individuals had been lying-in-wait ready to pounce at the opportune time, hence the seemingly pitched battle for the presidency?

However, Zambians must not allow history to repeat itself.

It would be a sad if after 50 years the country were to witness a repetition of the ugly and divisive 1967 UNIP party Conference held at the Mulungushi Rock of Authority that nearly plunged the nation into chaos.

It was ugly.

Leaders, who were once comrades, resorted to dirty tactics. Those who felt that their positions threatened, shamelessly started playing the tribalism card, forming alliances, which were to all intents and purposes, marriages of convenience fashioned at the spur of the moment to defeat their perceived political foes from other provinces.

The consequences of that conference were far-reaching and so terrible that UNIP leaders in Lusaka and district and provincial levels, consciously or unconsciously resorted to “divide-and-rule”, a tactic that the colonialists had perfected.

After the 1967, too, all perceived dissidents – those who, probably on principle, would never say “Yes” were appointed, and ‘dis-appointed’ overnight, literally.

Others were demoted and posted to some remote rural area or sent into foreign service (if they were lucky) while others suffered lack of promotion or scholarship because they were regarded as unrepentant mavericks.

In other words, many innocent Zambians, who had absolutely nothing to do with the power-struggles among the top brass, were caught in the crossfire.

“I know how to fix people like you,” became the general theme among some malicious misguided bosses, something former State House presidential aide and diplomat Beatwell Chisala has highlighted in his book, The Downfall of President Kaunda.

Someone has accused me of writing about the same topic, but I believe it is vitally important that all Zambians rise up and say ‘enough is enough’. Our leaders, regardless of tribe or race must understand that if you are a presidential aspirant your task, once elected, is to lead all Zambians and not simply your tribe, district nor province.

Some people might disagree, but I would like to believe the late President Sata was conscious of this fact, which is why he appointed some ‘capable’ opposition members of Parliament (MPs) to Government posts. Such leaders deserve commendation – and not condemnation.

As far as I am concerned Mr Sata’s message was unequivocal: When elected to Parliament – whether on the UPND, FDD, MMD or PF ticket, you become a civil servant to serve the country and its people irrespective of who voted for you and who didn’t. You are a national leader; not a village headman or tribal elder.

So as the PF delegates meet to select the man or woman to replace the pace-setter Michael Chilufya Sata, acting President Guy Scott and his team will collectively need King Solomon’s wisdom that he displayed when he presided over the case of the two prostitutes and the dead child.

King Solomon was able to tell who the real mother of the child was between the prostitute who said ‘cut the child in two’ so each one of them could have her share because half-a-baby is not a baby but a copse.

For the sake of readers who might be unfamiliar with the story, the Bible narrative runs as follows: “Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. One of them said, ‘Pardon me my lord.

This woman and I live in the same house, and I had a baby while she was there with me. The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was no one in the house but the two of us.

During the night this woman’s son died because she lay on him. So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while your servant was asleep.

She put him by her breast and put her dead son on my breast. The next morning, I got up to nurse my son – and he was dead!! But when I looked at him closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn’t my son that I had borne’.

The other woman said, ‘No the living one is my son; the dead one is yours.’ The first one insisted ‘No, the dead one is yours; the living one is mine.’ And so they argued before the king.

The king said, ‘This one says ‘My son is alive and your son is dead’ while that one says ‘No my son is alive’.”

Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought the sword for the king. Then he gave an order: “Cut the child in two and give half to one and the half to the other.”

The woman whose child was alive was deeply moved out of love for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him.”

But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!”

Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”

When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice.” 1Kings 3:16-28

Now, which ambitious self-serving man or woman has prepared himself or herself to fight to the last man to have baby (PF) – and by extension Zambia as a nation split?

?All peace-loving PF leaders will need to be sober and understand that there is enough room only for one person at the top.

People must learn to dialogue, agree to disagree and move on for sake of unity and peace in the country. All must rally behind the successful aspirant, otherwise PF will miss the boat, come January.

Following Mr Sata’s passing, world attention is certainly on Zambia; so leaders and their members, from across the political divide, will need to be rational and refrain from acts of violence that could jeopardise the country’s thriving economy and the peace that has prevailed since independence in 1964.

Given our recent history, I believe, too, that the health leaders, particularly presidential aspirants (from all the contending parties) is paramount and must be a major consideration before one can offer themselves for nomination/ election.

So the next president, including the one chosen to complete Mr Sata’s last two years as head of state, must be medically fit enough to govern and even serve the next two five-year terms starting in 2016 when the next general elections are due.

Zambia has learned the hard way.

After Presidents Levy Mwanawasa, Frederick Chiluba and now Mr Sata, we can only play the ostrich at our own peril.

Some people might argue in terms of what the Constitution of Zambia says on such matters, but ideally presidential hopefuls should now be asked to produce, on demand by the returning officer, the Chief Justice, a certified copy of their latest medical report from recognised private practitioners. Of course, this process is not foolproof, but it would be a good starting point.

All in all, the pressure is on the PF leaders and their supporters to remain level-headed as they search for a suitable candidate that can win them the by-election in January and keep the party intact or risking sinking into oblivion. It requires sacrifice and selflessness by everyone.

Comments

: Readers are reminded that they are free to comment but such comments/contributions will be edited for libel and length. Libelous comments will not be published. Contact:

alfredmulenga777@

gmail.com