Zimpapers Logo

place like it did in the Middle East?
Those politicians who were marginalised offer themselves to the electorate. But the electorate is of two minds whether to give absolute power to the newcomers or to the experienced politicians to maintain a balance of power and stability.
In Egypt, there were about nine presidential candidates, moderates as well as hardline Islamists. The electorate preferred two candidates, one a moderate Islamist and the other a secular former army general who served as prime minister under the old regime of Hosni Mubarak.
The Egyptian electorate has been given a clear choice, either to go for the new order that may be Islamic or a new president, although from the old regime. What may be in the minds of the electorate could be that they want stability to be preserved since the Islamists control parliament after securing the majority of MPs.
This would give a balanced government where the day-to-day running of the country would be under a prime minister who masters a majority in parliament. The army will remain above politics to preserve the sovereignty of the country.
This scenario has already been applied in Tunisia where a moderate president was elected and in Morocco where the king ceded his powers to parliament with the prime minister coming from the party with the most MPs.
A lot of people talk about change without understanding whether the change should be of leadership or the change of governance but everything remaining the same. In many countries the make or break of any government is determined not by politicians but by the civil servants working together with the public and private sector industries.
Politicians come and go but civil servants remain to serve any leadership that is elected. Take, for instance, countries like Italy and Japan that are known to have frequent changes of government, sometimes every two years. Civil servants and industry carry on their duties to preserve the stability of the state.
Obsession with change for its own sake has never brought any development or benefits to the general public. In Africa, since many countries got their independence from colonial rule, there have been sometimes violent changes that have disrupted the gradual improvements of life of the people.
What elections and politicians should achieve is a general understanding that it is the prerogative of the people to choose the system that would give them a sense of security to fulfill their aspirations to improve their lives. The problem that comes is that politicians, in order to curry favour with the people or electorate, promise manna from heaven or go on to borrow money which the country cannot possibly be able to repay.
Some analysts have blamed the people for being gullible. If society organises itself, then it cannot be swayed by empty promises. A discussion recently with a journalist is a case in point. She wanted to know why Zimbabwe is experiencing such economic difficulties while some people are driving the latest cars while factories are not being utilised to full capacity.
Many people do not realise that it is not just going for elections that is important but the mobilisation of resources by the people that can enable the state to fulfill its role to improve life. I explained to the journalist that cars and houses are under-insured in Zimbabwe. This deprives insurance companies of much-needed funds to invest in companies that would create jobs.
The journalist turned round and said that it was the responsibility of government to make sure once elected, that motorists and home owners are forced by law to pay correct premiums for insurance purposes. It will be difficult to force individuals to take up insurance, something that has raised political temperature, even in the US, where the national health insurance is being opposed by some politicians as an invasion of the people’s right to choose whether to take health insurance or not.
Those with their own health insurance are reluctant to pay for the poor. What is exciting is what the electorate wants despite the political opposition of some. But elections have been held throughout the world to bring security to the people. Once people are assured of their security, they work right to the bone to improve their lives.
After the Second World War, those countries most affected by war opted for the politicians that they believed would bring stability to the country. Some countries like Italy, Germany, Japan, etc, were governed by conservative parties for at least 45 years. The stability in these countries brought economic development to the country without disruptions like what has happened in Africa due to military coups and civil wars.
As the nation faces another election, the people are opting for stability judging by the conversations of people everywhere. Instability will lead to despondency and general apathy. This will negate the country’s ethos of independence.
One visiting British engineer wanted to know why the Chinese were coming to Africa in large numbers.
He saw half the plane full of Chinese people when it landed in Lusaka, Zambia. I explained that the Chinese had invested heavily in Zambian copper mines and were not interested in interfering in the politics of the host countries. Even in Zimbabwe, the Chinese are here for business only. Africa should not export the monies that China is paying for trade to Western countries. China has brought stability to Africa by making it possible to improve trade with the continent. This is what elections should be about, stability to the nation.