In the 1991 elections, it was very clear whose side you were on between Kenneth Kaunda and Frederick Chiluba; no one was guessing your position. By taking this very bold stand at a time when press freedom was a courageous risk, you inspired courage in many people who might have otherwise feared to oppose the dictatorial regime of Kenneth Kaunda. Of course Frederick Chiluba soon disappointed you, but the stand you had taken for him can still not be regretted since it was taken on fact and principle. What is important is that what you fought against was indeed an evil that was defeated. What you fought against was grounded in historical facts and it was right to fight it, whereas the man you fought FOR had the responsibility of writing his own history, and of course, he disappointed.

As a newspaper, it seems to me that you are most effective when you fight against someone than when you fight for someone; this is because your main strength is to find out what has already happened in someone’s life so that you can expose it and lead the people to take a stand against it with you. As your mission states very clearly, you are the paper that “digs deeper”.

This letter is written to ask you to indeed take up your traditional mission of digging deeper (especially on the presidential candidates) as these elections draw near. Not only can you dig deeper, but now you can even “dig out” – your newspaper reaches people in remote areas that previously had no access to any newspapers. Your impact in these elections would be even stronger than what you had in 1991.

The reason I am writing you this open letter is because I have noticed that your stand in these elections is to take no sides. I will not equivocate: with all due respect, that is a very wrong stance. You must take sides. It is your highest duty to offer clear and unequivocal guidance to the people who have put their trust in your judgment, especially your moral judgment, at this juncture, due to your higher access to information sources and your well-known integrity. To take the stance of no stance is not representative of the spirit of courage and moral resoluteness with which you have come to be associated. Only non-thinkers and amoral opportunists normally take the stance of no stance; not the Post newspaper. Not my Post newspaper!

Balanced reporting is indeed an admirable goal, but you can not do it at the expense of truth and vision. If you know why we should not vote for a certain candidate, you must say it with authority. Your editorials must reflect your true opinion (which is why it is also called “Opinion”) so that we might know what you really think. Please do not expect us to read between the lines because you know exactly how crafty some politicians are: they are able to take even words that are implicitly intended against them and make them sound like high praises to them. Move from implicit to explicit, so that instead of reading between the lines, we might just read the lines themselves.

The paper that digs deeper should surely remind the people of the facts about candidates that have done evil things in the past, and it should sing this song every day until it sinks into those people who are still wondering whether the whole nation is supposed to forgive such clear evils or not. Your silence is suggesting that this is the time to forgive and forget whoever has acted like a thug in the past (Michael Sata), and whoever has lied openly in the past, even to your very newspaper (ditto). Your silence is a loud endorsement of candidates that we thought should be exposed for who they really are, and an acceptance of people that you have previously rejected.

No. Dig deeper. For there is now a real crisis of leadership in our country; and by leadership, I mean, people who can guide with convincing authority. Even our own reverends have lost credibility. Today they tell us not to vote for one man because “he’s too sick” and the very next day they tell us to vote for him because “he’s too, er, healthy” – not because they have performed a miracle of divine healing on him, but because he has promised to perform a miracle on them (of turning their rags into riches?). A crisis exists because there are so few people now who are incorruptible, whose opinions cannot be bought with the promise of jobs or money. This is the great currency that you currently hold – your incorruptibility, and it is what gives you the unique power of being believed when you state your observations, when you dig deeper.

Is it true that HH made his money in a dubious way? I can not make up my mind because I have not heard from those who can dig deeper. Is this an innocent man being crucified by the devil, or is this the devil himself – that crucified the innocent poor? Only you can dig deeper. You can tell us if it’s true he was part of a corrupt network of private and government professionals who shared the loot among themselves as he is being charged by some people. I don’t care to hear from his supporters, to whom nothing the man does can be wrong, nor from his enemies, who only know how to exaggerate and paint black everything about the man including his clearly white teeth. I care to hear from you, and this will settle the matter for me, because of the currency you hold: the currency that can be trusted more than our Kwacha that changes every day, the currency of true and tested integrity.

And what about General Miyanda? Is it true he is the one who took you to the police during his term as vice-president for expressing your opinion on some parliamentary sessions? Have you forgiven him? Do you believe this reflected a dictatorial tendency against free speech or was this just a momentary lapse of judgment? You interact with him closely – can he now be trusted or is he also just another of those that change according to the side of power that they find themselves (in or out)? Only you can dig deeper.

If today you do not guide the nation, tomorrow you will make your task of criticizing the monster that might get into office even more painful for yourselves. Remember, the important thing for us is not just who you take a stand for, based on their stated ideals; what is more critical for us is who you take a stand against, based on their past. You do not know the future any more than the rest of us, but you can dig deeper than us into the past because that’s your true business. That’s your power.

I have said what was on my mind and it is your turn to respond (or not). I think you will respond as expected, although you are obviously free to respond otherwise – by continuing with a stance of no stance, which of course is the safest stance one can take. But I have the feeling that safety is not a higher goal for you than truth and justice, which is why I have humbly implored you to consider going back to your original mission, especially in this election.

Writer is President of Zambia Online.

To comment on this article, go to ARTICLES COMMENTS FORUM | Back to Zambia Online