The Morality of Democracy

Kenneth Kaunda led Zambia for 27 years, from independence in 1964 until 1991. For much of that time, Kaunda and his UNIP ruled over a one-party state. Yet, he was able to convincingly frame himself as a moralist leader, which was the basis for his legitimacy. The seeming contradiction of an undemocratic leader accepted as a moralist challenges the view of democracy in the West. The West sees the issue of democracy as moral question, but in Zambia it was simply understood as a form of government, one of a litany to choose from, and ultimately rejected by Kaunda for much of his tenure.

Kaunda's claim as a moralist began as the leading voice in Southern Africa for majority rule. As he held a white handkerchief in his left hand, he frequently quoted Biblical verses and espoused the importance of love when explaining the cause. He promoted dialogue and negotiation as a foundation for his foreign policy; this in a region plagued by oppressive and violent white rule, which sometimes subsequently resulted in civil war. Many Zambians viewed Kaunda as the beloved father of their country and foreign dignities saw him as a respected statesman. That is not to ignore his numerous detractors, but to emphasize that his claim as a moralist is legitimate.

Towards the end of the 1980s, Kaunda's act began to wear thin, especially in the face of an economic decline. In 1990 he succumbed to a movement towards democracy. The next year he lost the presidential election to the MMD's candidate Frederick Chiluba. At the time, the West heralded the election as a wonderful achievement for Zambia. But the flowers of democracy never truly blossomed. Chiluba stood accused of stealing an inordinate amount of money while in power and was forced to pay it back. He attempted to defy the Constitution by running for a third term, an effort that his own party finally put down. Chiluba's election shows that there are not intrinsic benefits in the system of democracy.

Chiluba left office in 2001, but the MMD has held presidential power since it was originally ushered in by the first multi-party elections in Zambia in 1991. Levy Mwanawasa took over in 2001 without anywhere near a majority of the votes, because of a fractured opposition. Mwanawasa died last month and Zambia will see another presidential election on October 30 as a result. The MMD is running the acting president, Rupiah Banda. Michael Sata, the leader of PF, was a former member of MMD, but left when Chiluba did not tap Sata as his successor. Godfrey Miyanda, the leader of HP, formed his party after he was expelled from MMD. The other presidential candidate is Hakainde Hichilema, the UPND leader, who heads a party that has been criticized for fanning the flames of ethnic division. Two of the three opposition candidates are former MMD members, whose opposition is based on personal grudges.

Democracy can often be an effective form of government, but it is not a moral issue. The 1991 election, which brought democracy to Zambia, also increased the level of graft among the leadership. The 2001 election brought in a weak leader, a man who received about 30% of the vote, because of a fractured opposition. The 2008 election is only nominally democratic, because the opposition leaders are former members of the ruling party and only left because of personal grudges.
(International Affairs Edition)