by Vincent Sakeni The writers rationale is in impressive prose. It is, however, unabashedly biased and quite shaky. The first point is literally a comparison of an orange with an apple; he is making the same argument that supporters of Mitt Romney made against Barack Obama in 2012 -- that Mr. Romneys endeavours as a successful business executive, principally at Bain Capital, made him extraordinarily more qualified than Mr. Obama who had never ran a business in his entire life. The strategy backfired as most Americans were wary of entrusting the country into the hands of a pure capitalist, thus given our own experiences I would say there is bound to be some backlash of some sort with Mr. Hichilema. How much it will be is anyones guess as there are no reliable pollsters in Zambia. In my view, I think the UPND has been a bit careless in trumpeting Mr. Hichilemas business activities, particularly that entity registered in Mauritius. We all know that Mauritius is a tax haven and businesses are registered therein primarily for that reason....so how would an individual who, by virtual of his business practices, believes in paying little or no taxes reign in the large mining companies, which are phenomenal at tax avoidance? The writers second point brings to full fore the contradiction between the UPND Manifesto and their candidates campaign message. If the UPND is unapologetically neoliberal, as the writer states, then it is bound to reduce government spending, heavily deregulate, and transfer most public sector functions to the private sector. That is essence of neoliberalism. A reduction in government spending is not simply a cut in number of Ministers and their Deputies but a reduction across all manner of public expenditure (education, health, civil service, defence & security, infrastructure subsidies etc). And this where the contradiction arises: how does the UPND make education free from Grade 1 to 12 whilst cutting spending? How does the UPND improve healthcare, infrastructure, and agricultural productivity whilst reducing spending? All these things entail an increase in government spending so how do they get them achieved if the spending is slashed? Even if we took away all the emoluments for Ministers, it is impossible to meet the cost of these programs without increasing overall government expenditure. Then the question is: can neoliberalists be entrusted to lead when increments in government spending are required? One thing that has been surprising is the UPND position on taxation in the mining sector. Mr. Hichilema has stated that he plans to re-introduce the windfall tax once elected. But tax is a form of regulation, perceived as an hindrance to having free markets and trade. These are not my views but those of neoliberalists -- the UPND being among them -- so how does a neoliberal President increase taxes? And why would he do that? My presupposition is he would do that because he needs the tax to pay for increased government spending. Ideally, this is what Zambians want. But can a neoliberalist be trusted to do something that goes against his principles? In all honesty, I strongly doubt Mr. Hichilemas ability to re-introduce the windfall tax given his ferocious defence of Zambia Sugar when Action Aid accused it of dodging taxes. I do not envision him keeping his word on this and thus I dont think he will raise the funds to pay for the entitlement programs he is promising. In the mad rush for votes, some people say a lot of things which assume that the electorate are gullible. In 2011, PF had the utopian 90 days, and it appears the UPND is using the same play but in a different format. I know how they loathe the comparisons to PF but I dont see any shades of grey or clear distinction with respect to this. They are not the alternative they propagate themselves as. For that reason, I would rather have a President who is honest about the extent of his visionary ideas than a tongue-twister.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:32:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015