by Mungandi wa Muwina Mungandi
With the famous 11th August 2016 election over, the Zambian people are awaking from a deep slumber and questioning themselves as to whether they should continue believing in the ‘One Zambia, One Nation’ fallacy or they should dismiss it for the myth that it really is. More than ever before, it has become so clear that for half a century the people of the fictitious and failed unitary state called Zambia have been coerced and duped to believe a misleading notion that they are ‘one Zambia’ and ‘one Nation’.
The voting pattern which is not at all different from what it has always been, except that it is much more clearer than ever before, has shown beyond doubt that there are at least two nations here no matter how much we ignore the plain truth, because numbers never lie. In Silozi we say ‘Ha u koni ku buza nja ya muna inge u ibona’ literally meaning you can’t question whether a dog is male or not while looking at it. The fact that ‘one Zambia one nation’ is an erroneous belief is to me as clear and sticks out like the nose on your face. It is myth!
Background of the 'One Zambia One Nation Motto’
Though most Zambians east of the Kafue River do not want to acknowledge this plain truth, it is none the less true that the famous Zambian Motto popularised by Zambia’s first President Dr. Kenneth David Kaunda has its origins in the Barotseland Agreement 1964 (BA’64). It was uplifted from the preamble of the Agreement:
“And whereas it is the wish of the Northern Rhodesia Government and the Litunga of Barotseland, his council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland that Northern Rhodesia should proceed to Independence as one country (Zambia) and that all its peoples should be one Nation:”
The unilateral abrogation of the BA’64 in 1969 by the UNIP Government sets the motto in disarray and absolute quandary, earmarking it for a total and permanent collapse. The BA’64 is the foundation of the motto and like the fate of the house built on the sand without a foundation in the gospel story, the Motto is destined for a total and crushing collapse. The bible says “And the ruin of that house was great” Lk 6:46. The ‘one Zambia one nation’ motto cannot stand without the BA’64 upon which it was founded.
The two nations
It is a clear historical fact that Zambia as we know it today is a cosmetic country created by the Colonial overloads purely for purposes of satisfying there colonial ego, greed and appetite to amass more land, power and control. By 1911, the land mass that has evolved into two British territories namely North Eastern Rhodesia and Barotseland-North Western Rhodesia were further Amalgamated to form the jurisdiction styled as Northern Rhodesia for administrative convenience. In 1964 these two territories that amalgamated into Northern Rhodesia proceeded to Independence as ‘Zambia’ after protracted negotiations, which ended with the BA’64 as a result. The BA'64 was the glue that kept the two territories together. Unfortunately, the BA’64 was hastily mutilated by the Zambian government of Kenneth Kaunda leading to its unilateral abrogation in 1969. History attests to the numerous effort by the Barotseland people to ensure that the BA’64 is adhered to as a way of protecting the amalgamation, but these efforts fell on the deaf ears of their North Eastern Rhodesia counterparts who only wanted the ‘one Zambia one nation’ without the agreement that gave birth to it. Needless to say that on 27th March 2012, at a duly constituted Barotse National Council, The Barotse resolved to accept the unilateral abrogation of the BA’64 rendering the amalgamation of the two Northern Rhodesians null and void.
One Zambia one Nation as a motto was intended to promote the unitary nature of Zambia by protecting the Rights of the Barotse and the allied people groups who are basically a minority within Zambia. With the BA’64 out of the picture, it has been turned into a tool of forced dominion of North Eastern Zambia over South Western Zambia which was (roughly) Barotseland-North Western Rhodesia. This can be described as the dictatorship of the majority.
11th August 2016 elections
The elections of the Zambian President, Members of the Zambian Parliament (MPs), Mayors and Council Chairmen as well as Councillors for the Zambian cities, municipalities and districts which took place on 11th August in the year of our Lord 2016 have gone but they will forever remain controversial and highly disputed in the history of Zambia as a nation. Accusations and counter accusation of tribal based voting pattern have been thrown back and forth to each side of the dividing line. A petition is currently before the Zambian Constitutional Court challenging the election of President elect, Edgar Chagwa Lungu alleging massive rigging and electoral malpractices on the part of the winning candidate and party.
The rigging and electoral malpractice allegation notwithstanding, when you compare the amount of work and effort the two leading presidential candidates put in, one is compelled to conclude that the losing candidate put in more effort both in his stronghold and non stronghold areas. Like someone made a comment on social media that, how did ECL expect the people of Dundumwezi to vote for him when he did not campaign there? He stated that the people of Dundumwezi did not take lightly the issue of being left out on the chance of a free concert by some of Zambia’s most renowned musicians. Clearly, all the effort by HH to touch every corner of Zambia during his campaign trail was not good enough while the mild campaign by ECL who did not bother to touch every angle of Zambia leaving out many constituencies throughout the ninety (90) days campaign period was good enough. The answer to this puzzle is the fact that, ugly though it may be, the two main candidates in the presidential election were representing two distinct constituencies, two countries as it were and the other (ECL) had an inbuilt majority. It was and will forever be a mission impossible to overturn this inbuilt majority. That is the simple reality!
Someone has said that when an honest man comes face to face with the truth that he hitherto had not known; he either accepts the truth for what it is or ceases to be an honest man. For sure there are numerous fraud allegations in this particular election, but for me the bottom line is that this is a cosmetic country that we are trying to keep together but discarding the very glue that was intended to keep it together.
Interrogating the half century old fallacious motto
The question really is must we continue believing in the myth of ‘one Zambia, one nation’ when all indication are contrary to the notion? I turn on my TV and hear someone say “The elections are now over, let us move on as ‘one Zambia one nation’”. Is it that easy really, when the election results themselves have clearly indicated that we have two distinct nations? Shall we turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the reality?
I am convinced beyond doubt that no matter how many ‘One Zambia One Nations’ we recite in a day (like ‘Hail Marys’) Zambia cannot hold as one nation. Like Professor Sitwala N. Imenda has rightly observed in his recent article:
“... Zambia is doomed; it has no future; it is soon to implode from within - the centre will soon fail to hold.... A country born out of deception cannot stand the test of time and shall not stand the test of time; a country in constant denial cannot stand the test of time and shall not stand the test of time; a country without capable leaders cannot stand the test of time and shall not stand the test of time; a country with dishonest leaders cannot stand the test of time and shall not stand the test of time.”
To sum it all up, ‘One Zambia One Nation’ as a motto is not a correct truism or axiom; because Zambia is not one country anymore (if it has never been at all) and its people are not one Nation. Let all the stake holders face this reality and allow the peoples of the two Nations exercise each their inalienable Human Right to Self-determination other than to be bottled up within the artificial and cosmetic boundaries created by the colonial masters which no longer serve any purpose.