Wynter Kabimba Questions the Erosion of State Authority in Democratic Zambia
In a sharply worded and thought-provoking piece, former Minister of Justice and political figure Wynter M. Kabimba, SC, ODS, raises serious concerns about the weakening role of the State in Zambia’s democratic framework. Kabimba argues that while the return to multiparty democracy in 1991 was a watershed moment for freedom and governance, the unanticipated rise of competing power centres ranging from religious bodies to civil society groups is gradually undermining the authority of the State.
He warns that such developments, if left unchecked, risk plunging the country into institutional disorder and weakening the nation’s unity. Below is the full opinion piece as submitted by Mr. Kabimba:
Is the State Under Siege?
Wynter M. Kabimba, SC, ODS
The return to multiparty democracy in 1991 brought a great deal of relief to Zambians who experienced the excesses of the One-Party State rule.
Democracy meant hope and freedom for all. It also promised a stable society in which social and economic progress would thrive without let or hindrance. But above all this, most of us looked forward to a functioning State as the overall centre of power and good governance.
However, what was not remotely anticipated was the gradual emergence of other power-centres which would heavily compete with the State in an equalled manner and with a clear agenda to render the State almost dysfunctional.
It is a common historical phenomenon that power is always contested. But, in a democracy, the people give their power to their elected representatives. They give them a mandate to exercise it on their behalf and also in their interest. And, therefore, any other group of citizens, however noble their intentions cannot and should not claim to represent the people more than the men and women the people voted for to run the affairs of State with the president at the head of State power structures. This does not, however, mean that the church, traditional authorities, opposition political parties and civil society organizations are irrelevant or that they have no role to play in the affairs of State. What they cannot do or should not be allowed to do is to act like separate or parallel state entities in a power-sharing arrangement with the elected representatives of the people and the State.
These unelected entities are all subordinate to the State. Whereas they may claim to represent their constituencies, they lack the legal mandate in a democracy to claim the same authority which the State commands. To purport to do so is to sow seeds of anarchy in a democratic society.
The early signs of the State’s loss of its hold-on power is when the competing power-centres start projecting religious, regional, tribal and ethnic interests to promote and preserve personal or narrow group interests over and above national unity and identity. These are smoldering fires to which the State can only turn a blind eye and a deaf ear at great cost to its mandate and the survival of the nation-state.
Let me say with an instructive Dutch proverb that, “Little is done when many command.”
There is an equivalent in my mother tongue, “there’s no commander among equals. (Zyembela beelene.)”