PF, UPND: Did they ever marry?
By Bob Sianjalika
WHATEVER separates the opposition Patriotic Front (PF) and the United Party for National Development (UPND) must be greater than what unites them. This variance has been there and those who had eyes to see saw it immediately upon the formation of the pact in 2009.
There are several important governance issues that go beyond a singular political party’s ideologies that divide the two political parties.
With any logic at play, the two find themselves in such a difficult fix to just consolidate their positions.
The PF and the UPND formed a pact which had one agenda. Maybe that is the only cause which prompted this attempted marriage. It was their zeal and ambition to get into Government in any form come 2011.
But have the two parties gone into separation even before the consummation of their marriage?
Have the parties already seen through their suitors even before the pronouncement of the marriage and even before any fruits are born of that union?
Nobody should wish the PF-UPND pact failure, however a lot of people identified its weaknesses and prescribed immediate measures to prolong its lifespan.
Today even rival parties such as the MMD that without doubt are the pact’s target wishes this ‘marriage’ could stay on.
The principle of democracy is to allow participation and this is competitive participation of all interested parties in the governance system of the country.
Political activist Dante Saunders still has hope that the pact would pick up its pieces and move on. He has since urged outsiders against illogical criticism of the pact.
“The pact will resolve its problems alone. People who seem not to have help for the pact are talking too much,” he said.
It indeed would be more interesting and fun to see a much competitive electoral race come 2011 especially with the PF-UPND pact in place. This should be the wish of any well meaning Zambian including the MMD.
But what really has happened to the pact?
Variances
The PF and the UPND are principally separated by logic and non imaginative social elements of governance.
To start with, the PF is one party that has strongly been opposed to a free market economy and propagated the return of a controlled economy through nationalisation.
On the other hand the UPND has been a strong advocate of capitalist changes and a liberal economy.
Just this difference is enough for one to understand how possible or impossible it is for the two parties to form a coalition Government.
In 2008, Government announced the formation of the National Constitution Conference (NCC) mandated to look at and review the Republican Constitution. This task for the NCC is not for any political party but for all Zambians to benefit.
The PF boycotted participation on the NCC and had over 19 of its MPs expelled from the party for defying the party directive to shun the NCC. On the other had, the UPND overwhelmingly accepted to take part in the NCC without much hustle.
So, how did the UPND think it would address such an issue with its spouse who shunned the formulation process?
Several pronouncements have been made by both the PF leader Michael Sata and UPND leader Hakainde Hichilema on their working out modalities to harmonise their policies. To date, 15 months after the formation of the pact, no single policy by the two parties has been harmonised.
If the two parties have different positions on issues such as the NCC, which Constitution would they use come 2011 if they were to win the election? As it stands today the PF has not recognised that NCC.
The general principles of governance such as the foreign investment policies have been raised almost at every discussion where Zambians were given an opportunity to discuss the pact.
For instance, the PF is openly opposed to Chinese investment in Zambia which the UPND have no problems with.
The PF is also opposed to the One China Policy and support the sovereignty of Taiwan. This is not only a contradiction with the UPND but even with the current policy that Zambia has taken as a country.
Issues of foreign policy and foreign investment are key to any political set up especially for parties such as the UPND and the PF that were seeking to form Government one day. Maybe the PF forgot that Zambia belongs to a group of Least Developed Countries whose need for aid might not end tomorrow.
A clear distinction of what a political party intended to do should be given to the electorate before asking for any vote. It’s clear that the two parties have also not made any headway in trying to harmonise their positions.
Finger pointing
A fortnight ago, the PF and the UPND differed over the adoption of candidates in the local government by-election in Kaoma and Chadiza districts.
The differences resulted in both parties floating candidates in the by-election despite having a Memorandum of Understating stating among others that they should never compete against each other.
But was the decision to float individual candidates a major cause of the current rift between the pact partners?
Nature has its own way of addressing issues. The Kaoma and Chadiza differences have just been used as an opportunity for them to open up and speak out against the flaws the pact has concealed for a long time.
The PF is today accusing the UPND of not been sincere about its dealings in the pact and causing the current impasse’.
The UPND is also bitter and up in arms condemning the PF of being disrespectful and deceitful. So who is wrong? Whose finger is pointing furthest? Who will save the pact from the impending collapse?
It was strange that a senior politician such as the PF leader Mr Sata could raise his concerns against his partner Mr Hichilema through the media. It is clear that Mr Sata and Mr Hichilema have not shared any special time as pact leaders to discuss the future.
There seems to be more interaction between pact Members of Parliament (MPs) than there is between Mr Hichilema and Mr Sata. This gap is now glaring and a major source of the current rift in the pact. The by-election is just a scapegoat.
Why can’t Mr Sata as a senior partner in the pact (as he claims) give direction to his partner in a statesman like manner rather than through the media outbursts as recently seen?
Why did Mr Hichilema on the other hand keep quiet on several allegations against him by both the PF and the UPND that he had accepted to take the position of vic- president in the pact?
Giving up
Listening to PF leader Michael Sata makes some people open up on what direction the PF was taking in the pact. The PF does not seem to care anymore about what it says and does to the UPND despite being in the pact.
Today PF senior leaders are ever in the media attacking the UPND. Are these attacks helping them rebuild the pact or they are enzymes fuelling its further decomposition? Has someone somewhere given up on the pact?
PF national youth chairperson Erick Chanda has advised his party to get back to its drawing board and restrategise as he warned not to tolerate the alleged continued consistent and inconsiderate attacks on his leader Mr Sata by their pact partners.
According to Mr Chanda, PF still had time to reorganise itself ahead of the 2011 election.
Equally the UPND on the Copperbelt Province has been engaged in the undoing role.
UPND junior leaders on the Copperbelt have openly stated that they would support the MMD candidate in the August 5 by-election. Can this also be called giving up?
Like MMD president Rupiah Banda stated just a week ago, it would be nice to have the pact in 2011.
This indeed could have probed the strength and influence that the ruling party claims to have currently.
Leaders’ efforts
Are there any efforts at the moment by Mr Sata and Mr Hichilema to resuscitate the pact?
There seems to be a shift in approach at the moment. Instead of mending the pact, the two leaders are now seriously witch hunting. Each one is trying to blame the other for the troubles engulfing the pact. This is regrettable.
As stated before, both Mr Sata and Mr Hichilema should bear the blame tomorrow if the pact failed to pull through the current mudslide.
It appears the two leaders did not make much effort to address the issue of the pact presidency in 2011. They have both pronounced their interests to lead the pact, but did they find or put in place modalities to harmonise those interests?
They promised that they would face any hurdles head on and ensure that come 2011 the pact remained strong. Can they today stand up and reassure their sympathisers that hope is not lost?
Lusaka political analyst Smart Mwanza has challenged Mr Sata and Mr Hichilema to come out in the open on their position regarding the pact.
According to Mr Mwanza the issues surrounding the pact at the moment were beyond any explanation from the pact spokespersons Charles Kakoma or Given Lubinda.
“Let Mr Sata and Mr Hichilema come out openly. Let them face the people and tell them what exactly is happening,” he said.
Mr Mwanza still believes hope in the pact was not lost and pieces could still be picked up and strength regained by the PF and the UPND to move as a force to reckon with in the 2011 elections.
Conclusion
Although the problems facing the pact at the moment were very well predetermined by both independent and interested political analysts, there are still opportunities for them to move on. However, until the two leaders dropped the blame shifting mentality, nothing targetable would be done to address these woes.
Democracy is all about making informed choices and the two parties should take the challenge seriously and decide which way they wanted to go.
If as suggested by Mr Chanda that the PF ponders on going it solo in the 2011 without the UPND what chances do they think they have of winning the polls against the MMD?
The scathing attacks from all in the rank and file across the two parties PF and UPND is clearly evidence of something amiss in the pact. Just how well packed is this pact?
