Rewriting the History of Kenneth Kaunda?

By Chanda Chisala, Zambia Online .

Natural scientists, perhaps more than anyone else, understand the vital value of intellectual honesty. Without it, they cannot do any of their work. Without it, science cannot make any progress at all.

What is intellectual honesty? It is better understood as the opposite of ‘intellectual dishonesty'. To be intellectually dishonest is, in very simple terms, to know something in your mind and yet to deny it. In other words, intellectual dishonesty is a conscious denial of facts that you know are true. Different people become intellectually dishonest for different reasons. Intellectuals engaged in debate can sometimes choose to ignore facts just because they feel they need to win an argument, for egotistical reasons more than for truth and learning. This makes an argument irrational and therefore meaningless since the whole purpose of an argument is to establish facts through a rational process.

A scientist has no choice but to be committed to intellectual honesty. The tradition in the scientific community is to always put reality and facts above one's own opinions, no matter how strongly one has previously defended those opinions. If a scientist finds that an experiment contradicts what he previously thought or believed, he has the obligation of simply reporting the data as it is – not as he would like it to be, or as others would expect it to be. The other new ‘sciences' – in humanities and social research – have also been forced to adopt the approach of the natural scientists as this is the only way they can achieve progress in their fields. Failure to be completely honest in the mind can lead to regression of civilisation and even disaster at times as people might end up ‘knowing' a false thing. The recent war in Iraq was partly started because someone somewhere in the American intelligence system reported the presence of mass destruction weapons in Iraq and passed this information up as fact. Had there been intellectual honesty at every single stage of the system, there would have definitely been no war, at least not as soon as it came.

This rather lengthy preamble was necessary because the Zambian political culture is tending more and more towards intellectual dishonesty, even among our ostensible moralists. Politicians are particularly adept at adopting this dangerous habit as they sell their own agendas to the public. The result, unfortunately, is that we shall go backwards instead of forward as we continue to value the absence of true reality, the rejection of facts for the sake of winning the admiration of the masses. A principled person always rejects the temptation of denying the facts that are clear before his own mind, even if this means losing the support or friendship of other people. In fact, the world has always been changed by people who were never prepared to trade their perception of facts for agreement with tradition or simply to avoid social sequestration. Martin Luther, Charles Darwin, Galileo, Socrates, Jesus Christ, Nelson Mandela, ad infinitum, are all famous examples of people who refused to reject what they truly thought and knew in their minds for the sake of peace or friendship with society or authority. Some of them paid with their lives for their commitment to their own minds, and others lost the respect of their peers for refusing to conform, for refusing to lie. But history remembers them differently.

Let me now get to the point. This past year has seen the rise of a trend that could lead to the distortion of the true facts of Zambia's history as politicians everywhere have found it fashionable to pour endless accolades on our first president, Dr. Kenneth Kaunda. This trend culminated in the establishment of a State-sponsored birthday party – ‘birthweek' party, actually - for the eightieth birthday of Dr. Kaunda, something I am not particularly opposed to because I believe he deserves to be honoured as the first president of Zambia and as a great liberation fighter who helped us get independence from British rule. The Chiluba Government was definitely wrong to completely ignore the great contribution of the man in Zambia's history, even going as far as stripping him of his citizenship in a nation he founded. Chiluba's government was not intellectually honest because the facts are that Kaunda did do something important in the history of Zambia by fighting for its independence, and to treat him as a non-Zambian or even as a commoner was simply absurd and dishonest.

But equally absurd and dishonest is the current impression being given to the younger generation that Kenneth Kaunda was a very great leader during his presidency, whose great achievements were apparently only destroyed by Chiluba. This distortion of reality will end up obliterating all the positive lessons we learnt about leadership by observing Kaunda's (negative) failures and mistakes. Kaunda was a very bad leader in the political arena and he was an even worse leader in economic management. He was a great leader when it came to ensuring integrity in his government, but, as Mwanawasa and his Vice-president should urgently learn, integrity alone does not guarantee prosperity. Kaunda's political and economic record are much more important than his integrity because these are what has led us to the economic and social quagmire we are still struggling with today.

The other week Kenneth Kaunda publicly denied a charge that I and others have consistently made about him: that he was a dictator. I will always hold that the man was a dictator simply because I do not believe in intellectual dishonesty, even if this is no longer the popular opinion. Kenneth Kaunda was as dictatorial as they come. The way we can establish this fact once and for all is by conducting a little thought experiment.

If we can try to imagine Mwanawasa (or Chiluba) doing some of the things Kaunda did, we will immediately recall and conclude that he was indeed a dictator of the worst kind. Imagine what would happen today if Mwanawasa came on national TV and announced that his government was planning to change the constitution so that the MMD would be the only legal party in Zambia! What would we say about Mwanawasa? Would we say this is a great leader who has the interest of the nation at heart? The intellectually honest answer is that we would call Mwanawasa a power-hungry, selfish, greedy dictator who does not want to respect human rights or to face contrary opinions. We would not care what reasons he would give – such a move is always, always dictatorial. Well, Kenneth Kaunda did this very thing in 1972 when he came up with the idea that UNIP should be the only legal party in Zambia. The people back then felt just as betrayed as we would feel today if Mwanawasa did this, as evidence clearly shows.

Immediately after Kenneth Kaunda bulldozed his new constitution that barred other political parties from operating into effect, Kaunda started locking up and (allegedly) torturing people who still wanted to express themselves through opinions that were different from his own. Simon Kapwepwe, for instance, had formed his own party (UPP) because of fundamental differences of opinion with Kaunda and he actually had much better economic policies which, if they had been followed, would have arguably prevented poverty from ever coming to Zambia. Simon Kapwepwe was a genius who could tell even back then when socialism was dominant that the excessive spending policies of Kenneth Kaunda would ultimately land the nation in deep trouble. He opposed the policy of giving people everything for free and progressively subsidising all their consumption. Kaunda was a populist who was so addicted to power that he gave the people so many free things, even in areas where they were prepared to pay. His motive was apparently to always keep his grip of power on the people of Zambia, to always keep them from supporting his enemies (this very common mass-bribing tactic has been used even by the ‘capitalist' Chiluba administration, especially during by-elections). Kaunda established a formula that is still destroying the Zambian economy up to today as none of his successors has managed to understand how to reverse it decisively and effectively.

Having inherited an economy that was greater than Singapore's at independence, Kaunda led the economy in a direction that ultimately landed it below the bottom of the ladder of world economies. Giving people free things was not enough for him; he even nationalised all the companies so that he could control how many of the people received jobs from him and to collect more money for socialism. People today say that what he did was a good thing then, but Kapwepwe did not agree even back then and Kaunda made sure that he used his propaganda machinery to misrepresent and discredit Kapwepwe before the people. He tried to make Kapwepwe change his statements, but Kapwepwe was too intellectually honest to do this. He (Kapwepwe) could not deny what he was clearly perceiving with his brilliant and honest mind; he could not reject logic and common sense. He was not one to go with what was fashionable or popular – his only commitment was to reality, like a scientist who never denies facts for anybody – not society, not authority, not even himself. For this, Kapwepwe was jailed and (allegedly) tortured so badly that his health was never to be the same again. We shall end it there.

This is the real history of Zambia and not the revisionist version we are getting from the current crop of populist politicians. When the Zambian people rose up against Kaunda in 1991, it was not because Chiluba was such a great leader. No, it was because Kaunda was such a bad leader. What the younger generation should be told is the blunt fact that almost anyone would have defeated Kenneth Kaunda in 1991. The MMD, in fact, had a huge headache in choosing the one among them who would represent the will of the people at the polls because almost anyone could do it. The will of the people was already clear, so they (MMD) just needed someone to gain the full confidence of the public. People like Arthur Wina were strong contenders for the position. Any of these other intelligent men would have defeated KK because his bad, dictatorial leadership had become unbearable among the people of Zambia. That's the leadership we are now referring to as “great leadership”, which, of course, is absolute nonsense.

The act of changing the constitution for his own purposes was not the only bad thing Kaunda did. This event was just the epitome of the dictatorial character of the man. Perhaps we can continue our thought experiment to demonstrate a little further a few smaller points.

Imagine if Mwanawasa (or Chiluba) started referring to many, many people who are in disagreement with him as “stupid idiots!” Would we say Mwanawasa is a good leader who must be appreciated by everyone and understood by everyone for his good intentions? I doubt that very much. We would have no kind words for Mwanawasa.

Well, for those who are too young to remember, Kenneth Kaunda on many occasions referred to people who expressed fundamentally different political opinions to his own as “stupid idiots”. And this was not in the sixties or the seventies – this was as recent as 1990. He essentially called all the people of Zambia “stupid idiots” because it was the majority who were in disagreement with him over the issue of multipartyism.

Last week, Kaunda defended his decision to introduce one party politics by claiming that this was necessary in order to bring unity to Zambia. But this was really just an excuse he used back then – the fact is that we did not need to make other parties illegal in order to bring unity; other methods could easily be employed instead of the one method that gave him such great, omnipotent power. Our new populist politicians have accepted Kaunda's reason as a very good one indeed, as if they never heard it before. Not too long ago these same people had a different opinion as they were part of the team that opposed Kaunda's rule. In 1991, all these politicians were saying that the reason for one party dictatorship - as they referred to it - was never justified even in the beginning, but now they are nodding their heads when the old man gives them the same reasons that he gave even back then. How has history changed in the last thirteen years? This is a classic case of intellectual dishonesty. They are denying what they have always known in their minds just because it is now the politically fashionable and expedient thing to do.

The other day at the funeral of the current president's mother, Kaunda gave us a brief glimpse of the way he used to do things himself. In the middle of his speech, he called the Minister of Health and effectively ordered him to change the name of Ndola Central Hospital to “Mama Mokola hospital”. To make sure that he concealed his dictatorial nature, Kaunda added this with, “I am not ordering you to do it – after all, who am I? - I am just asking you to consider it” like a real democrat. Mwanawasa might of course fail to implement this suggestion if many people oppose it, but that's because he is nowhere near the dictatorial character of Kaunda. In Kaunda's day there was no debate about such things. We would just wake up one morning and find an important school is renamed after his mother (eg Helen Kaunda secondary School) or his father (David Kaunda secondary school), or a company named after himself (eg Kenneth Kaunda Publishing) and so on. You could be locked up for not displaying his face in your office, and he even stuck this face on all our money, including the now extinct copper coins.

We all had to repeat slogans that contained his name – a name that was supposed to be as great on earth as God's name was great in heaven, according to one of the slogans. If this is not a typical psychopathological trait of a bona fide dictator, then I don't know what is. Unfortunately, our intellectual dishonesty is erasing and rewriting our history for the sake of an ephemeral popularity with the short-memoried masses that ride with the wind. And by erasing this history, we shall lose our lessons and thus encourage our current and future leaders to imitate Kaunda in his “great leadership”. Nothing can be more dangerous than that. The Post newspaper, of course, is already leading in this misguided program. Their recent editorial on his birthday was unequivocal:

“If we wish to express what we expect our politicians, political cadres, our people to be, we must say, without hesitation: let them be like KK! If we wish to express what we want people of future generations to be, we must say: let them be like KK! If we wish to say how we want our children to be educated, we must say without hesitation: we want them to be educated in KK's spirit! If we wish to express what we want our children to be, we must say from our very hearts: we want them to be like KK.

And time has started to absolve KK and his comrades from all the malicious allegations of their political adversaries.

Time is starting to show who was right - what KK and his comrades did and what their adversaries did; what goals they sought and what goals their adversaries sought.

To those whose memories have faded, it seems incomprehensible that this loveable man was not too long ago the primary target of virtually every conceivable form of character assassination.”

What is funny is that the Post newspaper was at the forefront in using this same poetic language to condemn what Kaunda had done. In 1991, their memory was strong enough to remember how the man had led the nation in a dictatorial way. It was not just political parties that had been banned, even Press freedom itself was absent until the multipartyism movement of 1990 when the Post themselves were formed.

In fact, the Post did admit in the same editorial that they have just changed their position over the years, albeit in a parenthetical, single line that offers no explanation for their metamorphosis:

“Though we have been one of his sternest critics, we can, however, appreciate his motives.”

What were his motives in blocking press freedom that we should appreciate? What were his motives in forbidding media access to government information? What were his motives in banning other political parties and locking up their leaders? What were his motives when he insulted journalists from abroad who tried to ask him questions that he did not like? What were his motives when he made so many women dance for him everywhere (something that his successors were only glad to continue enjoying)? Was there some great, hidden developmental motive in all these actions?

Only an intellectually dishonest person will succumb to the current pressure to revise the history of Kenneth Kaunda for the sake of Kenneth Kaunda. There is really nothing to appreciate about his motives. He wanted to be eternally powerful and to be revered by Zambians everywhere – Zambians east, Zambians West, Zambians North, Zambians South and Zambians centre, to paraphrase another slogan he taught us.

Finally, it is important for me to state (though I do not expect to be believed) that I actually think Kenneth Kaunda is a very nice, admirable and generous person. When you see his passion at his new job of helping orphans and fighting against the AIDS scourge in Zambia, it is impossible not to love and respect him.

But this only means he is forgiven. It does not mean we have forgotten. Lest we fall again.

End.

To comment on this article, go to ARTICLES COMMENTS FORUM.

Author can be contacted at zambia@africamail.com . Correspondence with ZOL president can be published at his own discretion, but it is not guaranteed or even likely.