Why watch Zambia?

Zambia held presidential elections this week, a contest that’s had interesting implications beyond the borders of that southern African nation. When I speak about international news, I’m often asked about stories I think people should be following – this election is a great example of an important and underreported story. A quick update on what happened, and then three reasons why it’s important to watch.

The Zambian contest pitted incumbent Rupiah Banda against long-time opposition leader Michael Sata. Banda represented the Movement for Multiparty Democracy, the party that ruled in Zambia since Kenneth Kaunda, an autocrat whose one party “African Socialist” state ended in 1991. Banda was vice president under Levy Mwanawasa, who suffered a stroke in office, and narrowly won election in 2008. His rule was characterized by outreach to nations around the world to seek investment in Zambia, especially in the country’s lucrative mines… and by dismantling much of the anti-corruption mechanisms installed by his predecesor.

On the other side, Michael Sata is a firebrand who’s been nicknamed “King Cobra” for the ferocity of his attacks on political rivals and other targets. One of the targets of his ire have been Chinese mining companies, which Sata has argued aren’t protecting worker rights or sharing the wealth with Zambians. In 2006, he made statements so provocative that China threatened to stop investing in Zambia if Sata were elected to office. He’s softened many of those stances, but should be viewed as a populist who’s promising more equitable distribution of wealth within Zambia.

Sata believes he won the 2008 election, and there were worries about whether this year’s election would be free and fair… and whether a disputed election could end in violence. The just-concluded election didn’t start well. It took three days for votes to be tallied, and riots broke out in some southern cities, reflecting fear that the election might be stolen. But early this morning, the electoral commission gave Sata the win. Fingers are now crossed that a) the violence will cease and b) that Chinese investors won’t pull out of the country abruptly out of fear or dissatisfaction with the election.

So why pay attention to the story?

China in Africa. One of the major trends of this decade is China’s emergence as a major power on a world stage. We are entering a multipolar world, where American and European influence are complemented and counterbalanced by Chinese, Indian and other influences. This multipolar future has been unfolding more quickly in Africa than in other parts of the world, because so many weak economies are dependent on international aid and investment.

Global Voices held a meeting between African and Chinese bloggers in 2007, talking about China in Africa, and the perceptions each group had of the other. Chinese bloggers pointed out that state media was urging Chinese people to relocate to Africa, both in the hopes of growing rich and out of a sense of duty to “improve” lives on the continent. African bloggers saw the Chinese as a source of investment, but weren’t naïve about the idea that strings were attached (a promise not to recognize an independent Taiwan, for instance.) Some argued that smart African nations could play China off against the US and other powers and gain investment; others worried that Chinese investors would outcompete local business.

In Zambia, attitudes towards the Chinese have soured, both because of failed infrastructure projects and safety issues in the mines. Some have argued that the “fast and loose” culture of Chinese business can only succeed in more closed African societies, where protection of an autocratic ruler (like Mugabe) can shield investors and entrepreneurs from public pressure. Zambia suggests that this may be the case – a comparatively free African country appears to be voting, in part, against Chinese investment with the election of Sata.

Inequality Africa is growing, and fast. The World Bank forecasts 5.3% growth this year, a much faster rate than in most of the developed world. That growth is from a low base – many Africans are extremely poor. But there’s an emerging middle class, complementing a small and very wealthy upper class.

This growth hasn’t been evenly distributed, and in more democratic African countries, this rising inequality is manifesting as political dissatisfaction. Ghana’s 2008 election saw the ouster of the New Patriotic Party, associated with economic growth and the expansion of the middle class, at the expense of the NDC, seen as more likely to aid the poor and redistribute income. There’s a long history of socialist politics in sub-Saharan Africa. Some of that history is simply about Cold War geopolitics, but some reflects local attitudes that economic success needs to benefit society as a whole, not just those lucky enough to have good-paying jobs. As African nations get wealthier, expect to see more tensions over inequality and efforts to ensure redistribution of income. (God only knows when we might see such trends in the US.)

Democracy in Africa Do a quick Google search for “democracy in Africa”. You’ll find a number of stories bemoaning the failures of democracy on the continent, worrying about failed elections in Kenya and Nigeria. Don’t take these articles too seriously. They talk about important political situations, but they may be failing to see the forest for the trees.

Africa is becoming a hotbed for democracy. Freedom House (whose methods I sometimes disagree with, but who offer a global view of political freedoms over a long period of time) identifies three “free” states in West Africa (Ghana, Benin and Mali), and three in southern Africa (South Africa, Botswana and Namibia) as well as three of the small island states. And more than twenty states meet Freedom House’s “partly free” criteria, including powerhouses like Kenya, Nigeria and Senegal. Zambia is listed as partly free, but this year’s successful election might lead to an upgrade. Nigeria, often dismissed as a basket case, had a pretty good election this year as well.

Contrast this to Freedom House’s map of the Middle East and North Africa, issued before the Arab Spring unfolded. It’s a sea of purple, the color of “not free”. From Algeria to Iran, nations are not free, with the sole exceptions of Israel, Morocco, Lebanon and Kuwait. Compared to its neighbors to the north, Africa looks like it is getting its act together.

We don’t hear much about the spread of democracy in Africa. Mugabe’s absurdities get a lot of ink, as do Bashir’s. And the current refugee crisis is affecting Somalia (not free) and Kenya (partly free). Rwanda, an increasingly popular spot for American investment and aid, and Ethiopia, home of the AU, aren’t free, but gain their share of ink, while stable democracies like Botswana and Mali are often too boring to report on.

There’s a danger that we miss a major story here: democracy is taking root in Africa and spreading rapidly. Nations like Zambia, which survived autocratic rule and then dominance by one party are now seeing democratic change. It’s important to cover African crises and tragedies, but not at the expense of the hopeful news of democratic success and change.

This entry was posted in Africa. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Why watch Zambia?

  1. Maxamed says:

    “Compared to its neighbors to the north, Africa looks like it is getting its act together.”

    Those neighbors to the north are still Africa. And the notion that north Africa is only “Arab” is misleading. Also Somaliland isn’t a country. As you might suspect I detest the use of the phrase “sub-Saharan Africa”. But I agree with your assessment.

    China (and others) in Africa is a welcome alternative to the West in my opinion. Its a chance for Africa to break away from the old colonialism. And I think it all depends on Africa not try to impress anyone else but themselves. Really its not worth anyone’s effort to try to change peoples opinions that are formed by their ignorance. Who cares what Google says about “democracy” in Africa. What does Africa say about democracy. Thats what matters.

  2. Carl Wahl says:

    Hi Ethan –
    Nice entry and well thought out. One comment, though … when the former ruling party (the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD)) came into power in 1991, it was on the crest of a similar “change”. However, they promptly did all they could to put the former ruling United National Independence Party (UNIP) out of commission. It worked: UNIP now campaigns on bicycles and polled 9,713 votes nationwide. The national broadcaster, ZNBC, became a mouthpiece for the MMD; interesting to note that they got really confused by the change of government, because the PF party they’d been bad-mouthing for months is now in charge.

    I pray that a similar story doesn’t repeat itself with the new PF government. However, I think whether or not democratic change really occurs in Zambia is a question for three to five to ten years from now. Will ZNBC become a PF megaphone and actively discredit, say, the UPND? Will the government harry MMD officials to no end, forcing them into obscurity? Will government patronage re-establish itself as a basis for buying votes? If the answer is “yes”, then there will have been no real change.

    Thanks,
    Carl Wahl
    Senanga, Zambia

  3. Pingback: Sunday Reading « zunguzungu

  4. Eric says:

    Comes across like history is repeating itself in Zambia as it happened in Ghana. The NPP after being in opposition for almost 20 years won under the leadership of Former President Kufuor who was defiant but in a gentle way (called the Gentle Giant). He won’t against current President Atta-Mills who was Vice to Former President Rawlings, the incumbent. President Atta-Mills conceded defeat and went back to the drawing board, hatched his campaign strategy and stuck to it for eight years and won in the last elections.

    I salute Former President Rupiah Banda for his statesmanship in conceding defeat and congratulating President Sata – http://www.africanelections.org/new_news.php?nid=326 – time for him to go back to the drawing board whiles we experience the leadership of President Sata whom i hope would Iive up to his words and move Zambia to the next level, Zambia 2.0

    It is rather unfortunate that the global media paid very little attention to this, i monitored the big screens this weekend and the only time Africa was in the headlines was in regards to the satellite falling out of space which NASA said would be falling somewhere in Canada or Africa, the Zambia election outcome was a one-liner. Very soon, there would be soo many of what has happened in Zambia that the international media would have no choice than to give it prominence – watch this space.

  5. Pingback: Zambia: We Need to Watch Zambia · Global Voices

  6. Sarah says:

    As always, this is great. The GV Chinese/African bloggers meeting was so innovative. It showed local level exchange where all we usually hear about is the very top level elite exchange. Will be interesting to see how donors treat Sata given the China angle and the Mugabe angle. I will be at MiT for Professor Srinivasan’s seminar on Oct 4 – really looking forward to it!! I also look forward to possibly meeting you there but regardless thanks for the blog!

Comments are closed.