YOUR headline story in your edition of Monday, July 9, 2018 entitled “Brother against brother” was interesting.The fact that UNIP was being deemed a dynasty party as suggested by Dr Waza Kaunda, might hinge on its ‘One-party participatory’ democracy tag which it also put on governance during its 27-year-rule which was neither democratic nor participatory.
To undo this is beyond a party convention. It calls for a complete turn-round of managing party affairs with younger people in charge.
The problem of lacking internal democracy is not only in UNIP, but many other parties, whose members have UNIP political roots.
While UNIP was demonised during the run-up to the 1991 general elections and eventually defeated, the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD), which took over, were no better, as they lapsed into the one-party condition.
They never built on developmental gains of UNIP, neither did they revive the economy nor created a relaxed atmosphere for citizens.
Corruption, poverty, and a vigilante culture inherited from UNIP compounded economic indicators. Recycling of political leaders became a norm again.
Thus, MMD lost the 2011 general elections!
While the Patriotic Front has revived the development plans as was the case in the UNIP era, they must also create an environment where social and economic problems can be discussed with the opposition sensibly without threats or fears.
I also do not buy into Dr Waza’s other suggestion that Zambia limits political parties to three. Like in any democracy, there will always be parties by name, sponsored ones and organisations to peddle propaganda of some bigger party, and mere ‘jokers’.
These are well known as can be seen from vote statistics.
Human rights educator