EXPRESSING SURPRISE THAT DESPITE DIRECTIVES BY THE VICE PRESIDENT, CERTAIN PRO-CSE WORKING GROUPS ARE ENGAGING SELECTED STAKEHOLDERS ON SRH&R AND CSE.

11TH OCTOBER, 2020 – (FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE)

We wish to express deep concern that despite the directive given by Her Honour the Vice President, Hon. Inonge Wina, MP, that a multi-sectoral technical working group will be set up to consult on Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), promoters of this programme have heightened engagement with selected stakeholders such as Members of Parliament.

We have noted that two urgent consultative programmes have been set up at the National Assembly on both the subject of Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights (SRH&R) and Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) just in the space of the next two weeks. We are in receipt of an invitation letter dated 9th October and a programme indicating that a 20 minute presentation on CSE Experiences is expected from the EFZ at a meeting to be held on 12th October, 2020.

While we appreciate the invitation to one of the two events in reference, our concern is that these heightened efforts by promoters of these programmes go a long way to undermine the mechanism currently in motion, set up by Government to review and attend to concerns in an objective manner, on matters raised against these two programmes by stakeholders.

We earnestly appeal to the Clerk of the National Assembly, Mrs. Cecilia Nsenduluka Mbewe to halt these processes being thrust on Parliament until the announced Government led consultative process is completed. A letter has been written to this effect.

We are also of the strong view that engaging Parliament at this stage may be premature as we wish that stakeholders, parents and other key actors complete the consultative process of scrutinising and reviewing SRH&R and CSE.

We also hope that the Report and Outcome documents from the consultative mechanism will be taken to Cabinet for approval and later to Parliament for adoption.

We hold the view that the two programmes are extremely fundamental to the moral, spiritual, character and cultural life of Zambia that the outcome document from such a national consultative process, should be accorded the highest approval levels by the organs of the State that should necessarily include the Executive and Parliament.

We also wish to make an appeal to promoters of these two programmes to respect the concerns raised by other stakeholders and to exercise patience and restraint in the roll out of the programmes in question until such a time that sufficient consensus has been obtained.

May God bless our great nation, especially as we commence this sacred week of nation-wide prayers in the wake of the National Day of Prayer, Fasting, Repentance and Reconciliation which falls on 18th October, 2020.

Amen.

STATEMENT BY THE BOARD CHAIRPERSON OF THE EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP OF ZAMBIA (EFZ) – BISHOP PAUL E. MUSUSU

By Stephen Nyoni

One of the issues that delayed the formation of the Organisation of African Unity was the concept of State Sovereignty through non-interference. Interestingly, this concept that generally beckoned on the conditions by which states would intervene in the affairs of other states on reason of human rights violation, lack of government control, abuses of citizens by the regimes or other reasons that states would give; became the bedrock of the formation of its successor the African Union – institution that bolstered non-indifference instead of the former.

By the late 90’s it became obvious that regimes left to themselves where more destructive than productive particularly for their own people and eventually for neighbouring states and regional groups that would have to bear the burden of refugees and constantly blocking out armed elements that flee state action in their own countries.

Still today, their remains no consensus on what would justify action by an independent state to intervene in the affairs of an ‘equally’ independent sovereign state. Given the complexity of domestic issues in most countries, the resources to venture on such a foreign policy is often less likely. Similarly the prevalence of democratic republics makes war or any other similar form of military action less favourable for regimes whose existence depends on a public vote.

How then can states and regimes be kept from acting with impunity especially against their own citizens? How can third generation values such as the right to peace and development be emphasised when the bedrocks of democracy such as freedom of speech and the right to assembly are still frowned upon in most developing states?

There seems to be a modern method of foreign intervention devised by the West that looks at the internal issues of a state. I have termed this method as INTRAVENTION.

Often regimes that are characterised by oppressive behaviours are coupled with a serious lack in the delivery of basic services and a significant incapacity to protect the citizens from several abuses including those propagated by agents of the state themselves.
The most recent, which has actually been effective in unseating dictators that have held on to power for several years, with tenures characterised by constitutional changes to increase terms of office, rampant rigging during elections and increased levels of corruption and pilferage; has been through the use of the people themselves.

These methods border on those recommended by Gene Sharpe in the elaboration of conflict theories. In which the mobilisation of the masses leads to the advancing of the popular opinion that has for long been oppressed but that gets unearthed by certain sharp changes in the already difficult economic system. Except, in stepping briefly away from Sharpe’s theory, in some (most actually) cases citizens act with violence or riot as opposed to nonviolent movements.

The instigating factor has differed in various states where this system of mass action has taken place; from the sharp rise in fuel prices to shortages in basic commodities such as bread. These conditions that have been coupled with existing pressures, government’s failure to justify various misappropriations and abuses as well as dwindling favourability in the international community.

It’s the last element that seems to not occur by coincidence. One would rightfully ask why is it that the only time that regimes have faced significant resistance from within is when they seems to be a drop in the favour points with states that drive the international agenda. Often, oppressive governments have been able to survive the tide of internal pressures for as long as the necessary portions of the international community – is appeased in whatever way – more seasoned international relations experts often familiarise themselves better with the operations of these systems. However, the moment a regime losses favour with international powers, its seems almost automatic that simultaneously, its people gain more conscious of the problems that they have actually been facing for the last 30 or so years in some cases.

Taking into consideration the implications of having a rocky relationship with the international ‘masters’, one would argue that it is the enforcement of measures such as sanctions that exacerbate the already existing tensions to breaking point, but it remains quite ironic; especially, how citizens gather the initially non-existent impetuous to counter the bullets, teargas and water cannons; the brute force of a regime whose aim is to curtail all forms of dissent.

Could it be that in some cases, what seems like the revolutions of the peoples are actually a form of international intervention that makes use of the opportunity of dissatisfaction among locals? Could it be that the reason most countries that have undergone this form of regime change fail to come up with a replacement to the fallen powers is because the movement was not in their hands in the first place? That if the movement was genuinely people driven, they would have been led by a known leadership with a goal beyond merely removing a regime? And that even if this was their main goal (it is an extremely significant goal; people must enjoy the right to choose their own leadership), they must therefore have means to return to governable conditions once the regime has fallen?

It is obvious that as weapons become more and more sophisticated, the world is urging towards resisting the need for violent actions. Africa has pledged to ‘silence the guns’ on the continent; despite it being home to a number of leaders that must constitutionally not be in office. It has become obvious that military action complicates rather than solves problems of an economic or social nature.

The modern foreign intervention mechanism – INTRAVENTION – seeks to mount effective changes whether it is in policy, state systems or regimes through the people themselves. There are no military ‘boots’ involved in these actions; only the efficient use of modern technologies to spread the need for urgency in the citizens to take action whenever the smallest window of opportunity presents itself. In no time, the initial cause of unrest is forgotten with individuals finding more benefits from the chaotic situation than they would in a system of law and order. As such, this social action includes elements of looting, unjustified violence, damage to public property and in some cases armed resistance against the police.

It would be less coincidental if at all the states that have encountered similar situations where not in conflict with their international partners. The line is thin however, in identifying which is which between movements that have been genuinely led by the people for the people and those that seem to have a significant outsider influence.

Gone are the times when militaries will come into a country and seek to override its security and install peace, liberal systems and institutional order. It seems more likely these days that the people themselves just need some catalytic external power before they realise that they have reached their breaking point. It is almost impossible to turn back at this point and it takes really experienced statesman craftsmanship to save a country from obliteration at this point. Especially because several other interests of MNC’s, natural resources, warlords and other non-state and state actors become close to being secured.

The modern developing state must as such be on the look to strike a balance between local and international factors if it seeks to avoid being victim of the modern foreign intervention method. I call this method INTRAVENTION; THE PROCESS BY WHICH FOREIGN PARTIES (OFTEN SUPERPOWERS) EFFECT DOMESTIC CHANGES IN SOVEREIGN STATES BY SUPPORTING AN ENVIRONMENT OF REVOLUTION BY CITIZENS OF THE TARGET COUNTRY.

By Hakainde Hichilema President UPND

Despite the ratification of the Mr. Christopher Mvunga as Governor of the Bank of Zambia, the Kwacha continues to come under intense pressure. We cannot ignore lingering uncertainties about the extent of the central bank independence over the next 11 months, and the implications for inflation and the exchange rate.

As a close affiliate of the President and a member of the PF, Mr. Mvunga’s first task should be to clear the air as to whether the Bank of Zambia will operate independently, or join the class of public institutions that are severely compromised by the current PF administration. Specifically, will economic considerations be subservient to political interests, whenever his allegiances to Mr. Lungu do not align with the long-term interests of the Zambian people?

So far, the misplaced instructions from a PF cadre, to Mr. Mvunga to deal with perceived economic sabotage at Bank of Zambia, have left the public wondering if he will be his own man, or if he will be working under instructions from his fellow party affiliates. For the sake of the weakening economy, we strongly urge the Bank of Zambia to maintain its professionalism, restrain quasi-fiscal operations such as money printing, and provide objective analysis and advice to the government on the state of the economy.

In dispelling all doubt, it must be known that it will not be sufficient to have central bank independence in pronouncement only. Rather, it will be the actions of the Bank of Zambia that will speak louder than its words. For instance, will it aggressively use our merger foreign reserves in pursuits of a short-lived appreciation of the Kwacha to impress his party, or will it take a more cautious approach? The rapid depletion of our reserves could lead to a steep depreciation and/or imposition of foreign exchange controls of the 1980s, taking the country in reverse.

On the issue of money printing, it must be noted that the Bank of Zambia Act limits lending to Government in 2020 to approximately K7.4 billion, or 15 percent of 2019 revenues. Estimates place current lending at 9.0 percent. Considering the planned domestic financing of K17.4 billion in the 2021 budget, it is easy to imagine a rapid use of the remaining headroom.

A breach of this limit would be indicative of a weakening of the fiduciary responsibility under Mr. Mvunga’s regime and risk of additional upward pressure on inflation within the context of an already struggling economy. Zambia has a painful history of hyperinflation when there was excessive money printing in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, to which we should not go back. We strongly urge the Bank of Zambia to slow down its purchases of government bonds and restrict lending to Government within the limits prescribed by the law, so that we do not have excessive inflation.

Further, various political statements by the PF over the dismissal of the previous Governor, suggest that the Party has a strong interest in the K10 billion stimulus package. Again, it will be important to closely watch the actions of Mr. Mvunga on this matter. Will he loosen restrictions to provide the PF easy access to these funds? And if they do gain access, will they repay these loans? We all know that the poor repayment culture that plagues CEEC and DBZ has a lot to do with easy lending to interested parties. As things stand, the non-performing loans of the Banking Sector are very high at about 13 percent, and it will be important for any economic recovery that a stable financial sector remains.

In sum, Zambians should watch the actions of the new Governor and judge his performance by the outcomes on inflation, exchange rate, and financial stability. His predecessor left inflation at 15.5 percent, the dollar exchange rate at K18.5/$, and a stable banking system. Where Mr. Mvunga takes things from here will depend on his actions in these areas. We hope that for the sake of the Zambian people, Bank of Zambia will remain independent and carry out its operations in a manner that makes the cost of living more affordable for the majority of the population.