YALI BEHAVING LIKE RIFF-RAFF OVER PF WRANGLES BY MAURICE MAKALU. (This is a long read, worthy a good 10 minutes of your precious time). The Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI), a democracy-oriented organization has reportedly offered advice on the stalemate in PF between the Central Committee and Acting President Guy Scott over the mode of selecting the party president. I refer to YALI as “behaving like riff-raff” not for sensationalism or bad-mouthing, but because they have exhibited embarrassing and dangerous intellectual ineptitude in their “legal advice” to the PF. “Riff-raff” means “disreputable or undesirable people.” Like the cartel! For reasons best known to them, YALI have engaged in deliberate bias, logical fallacies and deception to achieve a good objective. They say, “Hell is built with good intentions.” That is how YALI has behaved, and such characters are undesirable. YALI’S ADVICE YALI has offered the PF the following advice: 1. The acting President should ignore Central Committee (CC) meetings held without his presence or authority. Their argument is that such CC meetings will not be binding because the PF constitution only allows the President to convene and preside over CC meetings. So if he is not there or does not sanction them, any such meetings are null and void. This reasoning relies on Article 61: The President shall ( c ) Preside over meetings of the Central Committee; ( d ) Convene meetings of the Central Committee and National Council; 2. Article 58 (l) and (m) as powers of the central committee refers to rules and regulations not to constitutional provisions (L) says: initiating and approving changes in the Regulations and Rules of the Party (M) says: Taking action which in the opinion of the Central Committee is in the best interest, security and development of the Party and the State YALI reasoned that “It is a misinterpretation of facts to want to think that the provision in “L” mandates the PF CC to amend their constitution and ‘any action which is in the best interest of the party’ cannot override the constitutional provisions of the party especially at this time when a number of persons have expressed interests to run the Party Presidency.” 3. Acting President is empowered to take any action which he feels is good for the party. YALI reasons that, “The President of the Patriotic Front is empowered by Article 61(J) to take any action which he feels is good for the party and there must be no dispute that if PF has to promote internal democracy, going to general conference is good for the party.” 4. Correctly advised the acting president that his setting of nomination deadlines is ultra-vires and the constitution provides for the deadline to be up to 24 hours before the general conference. YALI deserves credit for making this clear. INTELLECTUAL INEPTITUDE OF THE WORST KIND YALI have embarrassed themselves in the following ways: 1. They have interpreted the SAME provision under both Presidential Powers and Central Committee Powers differently. Article 61(J) under president and Article 58(m) under CC are the same: taking action in the best interest and security of the party based on opinion. For the president, they have said this gives him powers to defy the central committee and go ahead with the general conference, if, in his opinion, he thinks it’s in the best interest of the party. A statement which was earlier attributed to the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) but has now, to the relief of the entire nation, being refuted by LAZ Presdient George Chisanga, even used the word “president’s absolute discretion.” For the central committee however, the same provision is not “absolute discretion.” Rather it is limited to ‘changing rules and regulations” of the party, and not defying the president, if, in the central committee’s opinion, they think it’s in the best interest of the party to do so. 2. They are using ulterior motives and/or committing a logical fallacy and disguising it as “legal advice.” YALI have conflated (to mix or combine separate ideas or concepts into one) Article 58(L) and (M) and taken them together as talking about the same thing: rules and regulations of the party. I have noticed this tendency in many ‘Facebook Lawyers’ too. “L” directly talks about “initiating and approving changes in rules and regulations.” The PF constitution is clear about rules and regulations and they are stipulated in Article 74, which is clearly termed “Index of the party.” So nobody is trying to sneak in suggestions that this refers to constitutional provisions. “M” on the other hand, also directly talks about “action in the best interest of the party.” Insinuating that this refers to rules and regulations is blatant concoction, pure and simple. “Best interest” is already inherent in “L” by virtue of the legal norm that every provision of any constitution must be carried out in good faith and best interest. Why would “L” alone require extra emphasis? “L” and “M” are two different provisions about different and independent subject matters. So why is YALI taking these two as talking about one and the same thing? There are two possible reasons: Ulterior motives or being limited in reasoning capabilities (including not paying due attention or playing jokes over a serious matter). Being limited in their reasoning capabilities will cause them to be susceptible to committing logical fallacies. In this particular case, they have committed the fallacy of conflation. This means mixing or combining two separate ideas or concepts into one because you fail to see that they are separate; or you think that they are similar. But since YALI are experts at law, or at least, by their track record have consistently demonstrated sound legal knowledge and consistently offered sound legal opinions, we will presume this is not the case; which then leaves us with ulterior motives. I cannot speculate what those could be but only challenge them to be serious, neutral and objective in future. The respect and high esteem we hold them in is for them to guide us, to show us the right path, not to deceive or manipulate us to support their preferences. It would be breach of the public’s trust and confidence to do that. POLITICISING A LEGAL PROBLEM. YALI misled themselves and thus the nation because they defined the problem the PF is facing in the wrong way – the political way. They defined the problem as: Does the CC have powers to amend the constitution and select a presidential candidate? If the answer is no, then Article 52(1) must be carried out to its full effect of electing the president at the general conference. So then it becomes that those in favour of a general conference are being praised as the “good people,” very democratic, following the constitution and respecting the rule of law. And those opposed are “bad people,” who are anti-democracy, with no respect for constitutionalism and the rule of law. Because of this, YALI have given license to Guy Scott as the “good guy” to override the PF constitution and bull doze his way. They have implored him to ignore central committee meetings that he does not attend or sanction. They have even pampered him to take action he thinks is in the interest of the party as he is empowered to do so. The dilemma is: based on the same reasoning, should the central committee also ignore a general conference they do not attend or sanction, and therefore make it null and void? Because, under the PF constitution, Article 58(K) empowers the central committee to summon regular or extraordinary meetings of the National Council or the General Conference. The president does not have this power. Therefore, fundamentally, Guy Scott’s general conference is as null and void without the authority of the central committee as a CC meeting is without Guy Scott’s authority. This is a stalemate and it is CONSTITUTIONAL. So both the Acting President and the Central Committee are RIGHT. They are BOTH good people, with the best interest of the party and the nation at heart. The nation must stand behind BOTH of them. By the way, when we cry for a better and “people driven” constitution, it is to avoid constitutional crises like this. People in authority must not brush us off and say, “Have you ever seen an ‘animal driven’ constitution?” So therefore, when there is a LEGITIMATE constitutional crisis and you start categorizing people on opposing sides as “good” or “bad,” you are playing dangerous politics. YALI degraded themselves and joined the political theatre when they should have risen above it. Riff-raff! THE SOURCE OF THE CRISIS This crisis is coming from exactly same clauses, intended to serve similar purposes but empowering two different offices: the president and the central committee. These clauses are: a) The President shall convene CC meetings and take action he deems fit (Articles 61(d) and (j)) b) The CC shall convene general conference and take action they deem fit (Article 58(k) and (m)) If there is disagreement between the President and CC, and you take the “good guy bad guy” or “right or wrong” approach, then you will force both of these to dig deep and refuse to budge. You will unleash egos instead of wisdom; competition instead of cooperation; building walls instead of bridges. The president will stay away from central committee meetings and the central committee will refuse to sanction his general conference. If you are “Team Good,” that is when you turn to the tricks YALI are recommending and call it “legal advice” to find a way out; or to name calling and campaigns of calumny ( and media blackout) against “Team Bad.” (If you are team bad you just become stubborn like a mule). These are just tricks because you know that you are just using a loophole. There is really no “expertise” or legal knowledge you are bringing to bear. The loophole is: “taking action one deems fit.” To mask that you are just exploiting a loophole, you resort to dubious and hollow reasoning whereby you amp one office’s (President) “discretionary action” to be very powerful and encompassing constitutional provisions and diminish the other’s as limited in power and scope, confined to areas outside constitutional provisions. And yet is just the same one thing you are defining: discretionary action. In fact, if YALI insist on this dubious path, on the path of encouraging a power play, trying to recreate Guy Scott as a strongman in the order of Sata; CONSTITUTIONALY speaking, the CC’s discretionary action is more powerful because its scope and reach is wider with bigger ramifications than the president’s. The CC’s discretionary action encompasses “best interests of the State” in addition to those of the party. So if you define “rules and regulations” the way YALI have done, as referring to “conditions for membership, termination of membership, re-admission, discipline, expulsion after conviction;” and then say this is the discretionary action the CC has been given under 58(m) and it does not encompass constitutional provisions, how in the world can that affect the interest, security and development of the State?!! It is impossible! Clearly therefore, Guy Scott can say, “The general conference is best for the party. I will use my discretionary powers to have it.” And YALI, Fr. Luonde, the Post Newspaper, presidential aspirants, and others will applaud him. The CC will respond and say, “The State is bigger than the party. No general conference. Time is not enough and we do not want divisions due to heated campaigns.” Both will be CONSTITUTIONALLY right. I challenge YALI to immediately withdraw their so called legal advice and apologise for misleading the nation, inflaming an already volatile situation and playing politics over a very serious matter. Only God knows how the Post will spin this and ride the wave of deception. YALI have a duty to prevent this. They must revise their advice and run full-page display adverts to convey the correct picture. Merely issuing new statements will still leave room for editorial manipulation, like making the wrong information a front-page headline and the revised information as a small caption inside the paper. FACING THE FACTS. We need to tone down. Everybody, all of us, take a deep breath and calm down. We are all right. Nobody is wrong. So let’s just face the facts before us without politicising anything with a spirit of inclusiveness and brotherliness. Sata united us and avoided this crisis in his time because of his charisma and command of authority. We loved him, listened to him and followed. Nobody dared challenge him. Fred M’membe declared that, “As acting President, Guy Scott can do and undo what Sata did and undid.” He was lying. And frankly, Bwinjimfumu’s propagandist misinformation has exacerbated instead of helping the situation. The state media seems to be joining into this deceptive propaganda. Let’s stop this drift down this dark path while we can. Gagging the media or ‘doctoring’ public information is anti-jubilee. Sata avoided this crisis using his charisma not ‘presidential powers.’ Guy Scott does not have that charisma. There will never be another Sata; so let’s stop misleading the acting President that he can use presidential powers to do what Sata did when Sata in actual fact did it with charisma and not presidential powers. There exist no ‘almighty’ presidential powers in the PF constitution. The pro-conference supporters must come to terms with this fact. To make matters worse, their voices are weak and few in the CC and they need the central committee for the general conference to be legitimate. The acting President cannot ‘constitutionally’ force his hand. The pro-sole candidate camp must also come to terms with the fact that electing the president via general conference is the best, wise and most democratic way. The PF constitution requires it (although it also allows CC absolute discretion). This is a fact! Democracy is a majority of people not endorsements or money (or aspirations). We are fighting for 50%+1 because in a democracy, you have more legitimacy as a leader when elected by a wide majority instead of endorsed by a few, even though it may be technically legitimate. At the same time, a party constitution cannot be abrogated at will simply because the “who is whos” of PF have declared their candidature and flashing the money around. THE WAY FORWARD The idea of a ‘sole candidate’ strictly applies only under the current circumstances of the PF having a presidential candidate in a national by-election. The emergency is created more by the State requirement of 90-days for a by-election and not by the party. If the PF were not in power, and would therefore have freedom to participate or not participate in the by-election, they would have taken their time to hold the conference and elect their leader without problems. So if neither the central committee nor the acting president gives in to break this constitutional crisis, I propose the following two steps as the way forward: 1. Hold a consensus building meeting: Those who have thus far applied to stand for the party presidency and those to soon follow, must be invited into a CC meeting to build consensus that: - There will be no general conference now but in 2016 to adopt a candidate for the 2016 elections. Everybody will be free to contest. - Conduct a secret ballot of who the vice president should be from among the aspirants, endorse one or retain Guy Scott as Veep. 2. Get to work amending the PF constitution. This document needs serious surgery. It was designed for a strong man who is no more. There is enough time between now and 2016 to fix it, adapt it to post-Sata era, democratize it, circulate it to members and then come and validate it at the general conference. Also update your membership registers and renew the mandates of your voting organs, most of which have now expired. Once consensus is reached, it should be made public and transparent. If necessary, binding agreements must be drawn and signed, with witnesses such as LAZ, eminent personalities, church mother bodies, civil society and judges. And should this way forward be found worthy, may I be invited to the signing event also. The agreements can be called The Chona Accords, in honour of Mainza Chona and his role in uniting the political parties at the heart of the independence struggle, which made the victory possible. This is to ensure that whoever will be interim president up to 2016, he does not renegade and dribble others with equally legitimate intentions to lead this country. Intentions they want to try out now rather than in the too distant future. In addition, he too will need assurance that the people he will serve with in his government will commit wholeheartedly to delivering government programmes instead of undermining him as part of positioning themselves for elections. The agreements must also include holding a referendum on the new national constitution at the same time as the 2016 general elections. This will give the PF added strength to their campaign. This is a win-win for everybody. Furthermore, RB is (or could be) back. A pact with HH is the best option for both of them. RB can be the interim president of the pact or merger with the sole mission of delivering a referendum on the constitution with 2016 general elections. He would then step aside for the “new generation of leaders” and the deputizing HH would step up. The stakes just shot through the roof. PF must sober up! CONCLUSION Sata was PF and PF was Sata. We loved him and what he stood for. Do not divide us or give us groaning hearts. In Bemba we say, “Imiti ili pamo, taibula ku kwesana.” (Trees that grow next to each other will always rub against each other.) We are proud at the numerous people who have offered to lead. You did not follow Sata in vain. You learnt a thing or two and it is commendable to give it a try. It is your right. Nobody should deny you, especially now that Sata is no more and the playing field is “level”. All of you are worthy and capable leaders. But we can only have one at a time. The CC meeting on Thursday must never end until a united direction and purpose is forged. Let it be a consensus building meeting as opposed to a normal central committee meeting. If it means sleeping in the conference room, do so until consensus is reached. Nobody leaves. We are with you and we are praying for you. Do not divide us in your zeal to rule us. Do not even celebrate advice which pits you one against the other, fanning the flames. Do not celebrate receiving more media coverage and stifling out the voice of the other. That is a path to the abyss. It may not necessarily be violence, but political irrelevance and self-destruction. Step back from it while you can. With restraint, sacrifice and selflessness, it is possible. “It seems impossible until it is done.” ~ Nelson Mandela. Unite us and lead. We will follow. God bless Zambia. PS… Thank you for reading this far...I enjoyed writing it!
Posted on: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:19:46 +0000