DSA Interface 142

133

member of the new society. This is easily seen from African traditional society, where person’s presence was cherished and valued most than what he or she had to contribute to the society; that was why no segment of the society was ever regarded as superfluous to it. Consequently, Kaunda believes that the committed Europeans would come to be cherished members of the modern African society not because of their skills but because they are considered humans. Their patience and sincere understanding that Africans would eventually come to this realization would aid the collective adjustment of both races in the new society.

134

Because of this, doubts had been entertained as to whether the liberation struggles that ushered in independence in the continent, properly deserves the term nationalism instead of Africanism. However, Kaunda believes that nationalism properly suits these struggles, since they mirrored the solidarity of the aspiration to create a nation out of the varied social divisions initiated through colonialism. Nationalism in Africa began as an intellectual agitation by few educated blacks but gradually turned into a large mass protests and demand for political emancipation and sovereignty. It was propelled by men together in form of labour unions and welfare congresses. Urbanization facilitated the availability of men; so intensified this new allegiance. Education on its part increased the extent to which they could go to improve their experience of the legislative process. The institution of racial discrimination and exploitation, launched nationalism into its militant phase. Lastly, the existence of tribal rivalry, and increase in personal differences introduced competition which hastened the pace at which the solidarity in freedom struggle moved to achieve its aim. But, with colonialism deposed on the continent, there arises a new challenge for African nationalism; that is, what becomes its basic target as was the colonial powers? Kaunda captures this dilemma thus:

The withdrawal of the colonial power, whilst solving one great problem, raises another equally acute for the nationalist leader. The discipline and solidarity of the national movement and the impetus built up during the freedom struggle are vital to the success and survival of the new nation. Yet unless new, exciting and worthwhile goals can be proposed for nationalism, there is danger of the movement of protest turning inwards upon itself and becoming destructive of the national good.¹⁶⁴

Thus, Kaunda accepts that to find the way around this new challenge is bulk of the problem facing the nationalist leader.

135

Nationalism, seen in this form, is just a stage to the realization of the national aspiration.

And having achieved its aim, there arises the necessity to make a further transition from this to the next stage in the national life. This is because:

Nationalism has too narrow a good, independence; but independence for what? We are free from, but what are we free for? Nationalism may be difficult to bring men to fight and even to die for this ideal. But what is needed after wards is an ideal for which people will live, work and struggle in free harmony, mutual understanding and personal respect year in and year out.¹⁶⁵

This ideal or set target or aspiration is nationhood expressed in patriotism; love and devotion to one’s country. Having achieved independence, Kaunda argues that “this is something which will have to be engendered (in Africa), because until independence few Africans were aware in this sense that they had a country – their loyalties were more restricted and fragmentary.”¹⁶⁶ This restriction as noted earlier, being due to the fact that the African still clings, tenaciously, to his tribal alliance, hence, is hardly aware that he has progressed beyond this after independence. Loyalty to one’s nation, the basis that patriotism requires has to be more specific and well defined. This differs from the kind found in Nationalism, which in a sense, was too general, and on the other hand, too restricted. In its general sense, it depicted the ‘Africanness’ of the people; the solidarity demonstrated across the face of the continent in their fight against colonialism. This is loyalty, too wide raging and abstract, hence, failing to provide something concrete to which the people can attach themselves. “Pan – Africanism, while it may be an ultimate aim, is too broad a concept for the masses to grapple with in the beginning of their independence”.¹⁶⁷ Equally, because nationalistic movement was in the main, a political movement its loyalties were too narrow being just sentiments to the party and its leadership. More than this, “patriotism demands a certain degree of loyalty to every element in the nation as well as one’s comrades, and which must have social and cultural and religious elements as well as political.”¹⁶⁸ The leader of the Nationalist party, because he is central to the actualization of the aim of the movement also commands a

136

lot of loyalty. He is the people’s mouth piece. “He suffer with them and on their behalf.

They speak through his voice and he leads them where they have trusted him to take them.”¹⁶⁹ Yet, this loyalty to the leader cannot suffice for or substitute patriotism. The nation is bigger than, and out lasts the leader, hence he is not indispensable. But, be this as it may, the position of the leader is the center of national unity, balance and support.

Kaunda accepts that this paternal feeling is necessary at the beginning to help the people gradually grow and mature into a nation. “He has been chosen and has survived because he was able to hold in balance tribal, regional and personal factions; because the people had reason to believe that he would not be exercising his power in an arbitrary manner, favouring this group against that one, drawing his ministers from one area or tribe.”¹⁷⁰ This responsibility tends to exults the position of the leader to that of a superman, and some leaders have also ridden on this to institute dictatorial regime in some African states. But, what is required is for him to be able to transfer the loyalty for party or his person to loyalty to the nation. It requires strong morality and humility for a leader to be able to make this switch from personal allegiance to patriotism; to shift the people’s attention from himself to the state. At this juncture, Kaunda brings in the need for religious virtue as basis through which this could be possible. His exact words are:

Without doubts, this lionization puts a great strain on the character of the leader of a nationalist movement. He needs all his moral fiber to avoid a corrupting effects of great power. There must be a rationality about his policies and behavior which make it clear to the humblest citizen that he acts not on the basis of masterful whim but as a servant of the State. I personally find that my religion is a useful antidote to any megalomaniac tendencies I might develop. I never cease to remind both the people and myself that I am not a supreme potentate but a humble servant of Almighty God. I do not miss any opportunity in my public utterances of turning the people’s eyes away from me towards God as the true sustainer and protector of the nation.¹⁷¹

137

Kaunda accepts that for the nationalist leader to properly transform the people’s allegiance to patriotism he needs to maintain absolute control of the State. While this may not necessary imply favouring his colleagues at the expense of the opposition party, it nevertheless ensures his continuance in office, which is deemed a necessity for the existence and thriving of the young State. This demands consolidating his position as the head of the State, leader of the party, and strengthening of the party’s control of the loyalty of the people. He believes that this would limit opposition, and, invariably, sedition in the state; because, it is common for the opposition party “to view the president, not as the heads of State, but as the leader of a party they are pledged to over throw at the polls”¹⁷² Consequently, according to Kaunda, “If the leader is to direct the people’s loyalty to the state over a period of time, he must first be in undisputed possession of it. The larger the member of personalities who have an absolute claim on the people’s loyalty, the greater the possibility of tribal or regional divisions being intensified”.¹⁷³ Therefore, the leader ought to take control of all political authority in the state, as in a unitary state. Kaunda considers this the most realistic political option for Africa. He accepts this position because he believes that the leader cum head of state, necessarily, have an adequate knowledge of what the people need than what they want.

He is able to properly determine this through the party officials, which, according to Kaunda, are reflectors of public opinions. These officials, because they stand in between the leader and the people, are able to properly assess the effects of the government policies and actions on the daily lives of the people, and present this to the president.

The reports of this assessment, which are always made available during party caucus meetings, help the head of state to steady the course of the nation without vacillation.

To be steadfast to these national needs, requires moral integrity from the president.

According to Kaunda;

There are no mechanical substitutes for integrity in a national leader…. Whilst understanding the concern of political scientists and theorists to evolve institutions of government which will neutralize any negative qualities in the Chief Executive, I still maintain that

138

moral fibre and character are more important than any mechanism of government in ensuring justice for all.”¹⁷⁴

The people would sooner or later come to the realization that the will of the State is for their best needs. Just as they would also easily realize that seeming popular government policy is intended to dupe them.

Kaunda sheds more light on how the leader would further aid the transformation of nationalism to patriotism. In the first place, the leader has the responsibility of assessing and choosing those who would fill in different public positions. But in doing this he must not be quick to choose his own successor. “ This is a fool hardly thing to do, given the highly fluid State of politics in Africa; it is also the ultimate cruelty to the young man concerned, who would as a consequence excite the envy and spite of disappointed aspirants who might do everything possible to destroy him.”¹⁷⁵ Secondly, the leader should recognize that the nation is held together not only by political forces; “a whole network of cultural, religious and social factors play an important role.”¹⁷⁶ These socio–

cultural factors constitute arteries through which the vital sentiments of patriotism flow.

Thirdly, it is a necessity for the leader to ensure respect for national symbols; “the protection and extension of national symbols is of paramount importance in simulating patriotism”.¹⁷⁷ These practices are expressions of the transformation of nationalism to patriotism. The future generation of the nation should be the special target of the cultivation of this expression. Therefore, education should be the vehicle of transmission of this guarantee of national stability. About this Kaunda argues that:

All education is indoctrination-the selection of certain themes and ideas from amongst the limitless accumulation of human knowledge which reflect certain truths that the educators regard as important. We make no apology for the fact that we intend to indoctrinate our children in the glories of Zambia and the privileges of being citizens of Africa. Providing the spirit of free enquiry and critical

139

faculty is not impaired, we believe that nothing but good can come from moulding the child’s mind in such a way as to make him a useful and constructive citizen of our future society.¹⁷⁸

The cultivation of this national spirit is equally intended as an antithesis to the practice of civil disobedience that ushered in independence. In other words, “now that the authority reflects the expressed will of our people and the police are the instruments of that authority, the trend must be reversed by education and propaganda”.¹⁷⁹ The job of organizing this massive nationalistic education falls on the party. “It is a structure of communication and control…. It has got to engage in such constructive nation building activity as will show it to be a servant-organization of the State”.¹⁸⁰ This expression is in keeping to its basic aim of ensuring that the nation comes first.

Kaunda also considers that intellectuals have roles to play in the transformation of nationalism to patriotism, having championed the social revolutions that announced independence in Africa. He describes who comprises this group:

By intellectual, I mean anyone who has a level of modern education beyond that of the mass of the people and who is prepared to become politically involved. The intellectual must be distinguished from the academic who is not a man of action but dedicated to the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. He must also be distinguished from the scholar who is versed in traditional lore-the Confucian Scholar in China, the Islamic Scholar in Middle East or the tribal elder in Africa. The intellectual is essentially an engaged man, applying modern training to political purposes.¹⁸¹

Teachers, lawyers, doctors, journalists and clergymen comprised the intellectuals in the pre-independence struggles in Africa. The task of leading the pre-independence struggles fell squarely on the shoulders of the intellectuals because of the failure of the traditional institutions to properly mobilize the people, and because the new social paradigm, nationalism, sought, transcends mere tribal engagement. The intellectual

140

needed a wider social situation in which to exercise his critical faculty. On the other hand, the intellectuals were brought into politics because the socio-economic discrimination introduced by colonialism shut all doors to their path of social advancement. Consequently, in their frustration to break into the white elite society, they turned back to their own kith and kin, and became the rallying point of nationalist activities. Equally, the intellectual’s mastery of the colonial language fully launched him into politics. “Literacy is the most powerful weapon in the nationalist’s armoury”.¹⁸² The colonialists well aware of this had tried to use this against the nationalist movement by appealing to the self-interest of these group in the hope of pulling them away from the masses. “Many of the African intellectuals who were founders of the African National Congress of South Africa were politically destroyed because they became tainted with this touch of white patronage”.¹⁸³ Hence, it required strong moral courage for the intellectual to stand by his people during the struggle for political emancipation. There is the fact that in Central African, the independence struggles happened while many of its intellectuals were still studying in schools abroad.

As such, it was the ordinary masses that had to make great sacrifices and contributions to the struggle. However, on the attainment of independence, the intellectual returns only to be favoured with high position in the government based on the consideration of his educational qualification. Kaunda believes that this could excite the envy of these ordinary freedom fighters, who believe they had made greater contribution to the course of freedom; this could be source of potential tension and antagonism that could tear the party and government apart, if harmony is not achieved between these two groups.

According to Kaunda, the difference between the intellectual and the freedom fighter lies in the temperament and experience which each brings to governance. The freedom fighter is audacious and a mob orator, but these qualities though suited for the pre-independence struggles, are less required for the administrative responsibility of the government after independence. This area is for the intellectual, with a trained analytical mind that can probe problems and assess priorities with great degree of impartiality.

Because he speaks the international language of government, he can also feed the results

141

of his reading and research into cabinet debates. Consequently, the role of the freedom fighter would be the communication of government policies to the people. For Kaunda, this is his greatest asset. That is “having dramatized the issues involved in the freedom struggle and motivated the people to act and suffer together, he is the ideal man to put across Government policy in colourful and simple language and to stir them to the work of nation-building”.¹⁸⁴ Therefore, both the intellectual and freedom fighter have valuable contributions to make towards nation-building. This implies that the leader should work to strike a balance between the roles of the two groups. Kaunda posits; “in practice I have discovered that it is possible to blend the mentalities of freedom fighter and intellectual within a government in such a way as to reinforce their strengths and neutralize their weaknesses, providing the leader himself can bridge the gap between them in understanding and insight”.¹⁸⁵ He also understands this blending of mentalities in the light of the fusion of western and traditional elements which for him should be at the basis of modern African society. Thus:

Whereas the genuine intellectual tends to be Western oriented, the freedom fighter often has his roots in traditional Africa. Each is prone to see a future society taking shape according to their own experience. Providing their debate does not develop into personal antagonism, some kind of equilibrium is achieved between the claims of the traditional and of the modern as elements in the new society through their joint presence in Government.¹⁸⁶

To actually strike this equilibrium, the leader must not show preference for one at the expense of the other.

Kaunda perceives nationalism to depict the concrete life of Zambians: their brotherhood, courage and sacrifice that won them their social freedom. According to him, “it is people, organized for given purpose, motivated towards certain goals and sharing certain emotion and fears”.¹⁸⁷ He expects this to continue into the new society, gradually

142

leading up to a One-Party State. Though Kaunda recognizes a multi-party democratic system, yet he forecasts a situation whereby the diversity and sophistication of the people would be limited and contained within a democratic system set up by the nationalist party. Consequently, he avers:

I confidently expect to see the virtual obliteration of the opposition at the next General Election, not by draconian repressive measures, but through that ‘painless killer’-the ballot box. Then the nationalist movement will be involved in massive reorganization and structural changes to ensure that the democratic process of free debate and exchange which formerly occurred across the floor of the Legislature is even more firmly institutionalized within the governing party itself.¹⁸⁸

This democratic setting is different from the colonial western model which is more, to him, an imposition, and not suited to the political aspiration and spirit of the Africans.

The nationalist movement expressed the spirit of the Africans that is why it received massive support. “Many one-party states are natural consequence of this process. The mass of the people supported one-party and was prepared to trust that party with the task of guiding the new nation”.¹⁸⁹ Secondly, the existence of various tribes in Africa, and the delicate nature of relationship between them, makes the existence of opposition party unnecessary. For Kaunda, this is because “historical causes of division tends to be so deep-seated that the very foundations of the State could be torn out if opposition group were given too much latitude to inflame opinion.”¹⁹⁰ But this does not imply that the idea of opposition is foreign to African tradition; in the indigenous societies members had right to dissent from a view point. However, once a consensus had been reached through vigorous open debate of an issue, it was considered a crime for one who was privy to the decision to continue to contend the same issue. Consequently, allowing opposition to thrive in the modern state could spell an open invitation to sedition and use of violence. For Kaunda, no well-meaning state or government would allow freedom, in this context, to exist in the first place. Besides, new African states exist in a situation comparable to the state of war; and in such situations, “there is not