Irrational thinker of the Week

ZAMBIA: TEARING A COPY OF THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION IN PUBLIC IS AN INSULT—NCC

THE National Constitutional Conference (NCC) has said the conduct of Patriotic Front (PF) deputy national secretary Samuel Mukupa to tear the Draft Constitution at a political rally is an insult to the many Zambians who have made submissions including Parliament.

And Mwense Patriotic Front (PF) Member of Parliament Jacob Chongo has said Mr Mukupa’s behaviour is also an insult to the United Party for National Development (UPND) their sister partner in the pact.

How does an expression of disagreement turn into an insult? If indeed it is an insult, what is the nature of the insult?

NCC spokesperson Mwangala Zaloumis said in an interview yesterday that it was wrong for the PF to politicise the constitution-making process.

“Zambians have been making submissions to the Draft Constitution and huge resources have been spent on this very important document therefore it would be wrong for people to politicise the process,” he said.

Ms Zaloumis said if people are opposed to the NCC process, they should not resort to politicising the constitution making process.

I thought the constitution itself was a political product. How does one politicize something that is already politicized?

She said the NCC was a creation of the National Assembly and that it was wrong for a member of the PF to conduct himself when parliamentarians from the party were party to the creation of the Act.

“PF members of Parliament were there when the NCC Act was created,” she said.

A creation of National Assembly or not, nothing prevents one from expressing disagreement with the contents of the document as it stood.

NCC chairperson Chifumu Banda refused to comment about Mr Mukupa’s behaviour because he had so much work to do.

“We have so much work to do because we have received a lot of submissions which Zambians have made, so I will not waste my time to comment on that behaviour,” he said.

That there were a lot of new submissions is justification for utter disagreement expressed by Mukupa. Submissions, in other words, are saying the same thing but in a more quiet way.

In a separate interview, Mr Chongo wondered how the PF and UPND would work together when they had such fundamental differences.

“That act by Mr Mukupa by itself is rubbishing all Zambians that have participated in the process including the UPND. They are telling the UPND that they do not think now just imagine how can these two parties work together. Are these really credible people that can form government?,” he said.

Holding dissenting views is actually healthy. It is a healthy organization that encourages generation of views alternative to the familiar.

“Do you have to go to such an extent if you do not agree with something? I think there are more civil ways that people can show disagreement.”

Chongo's failure to name one is indicative of scarcity of options.

He said by this act the PF were also rubbishing the Mung’omba Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) that the party has been advocating for.

“I only hope Zambians will now realise that these are criminals who want to usurp power by inciting people,” he said.

The Mwense MP also condemned the PF cadres for blocking Vice President George Kunda’s motorcade in Ndola.

“Just imagine what Mr Sata would have done if it was him that was blocked?” he said.
Mr Mukupa on Monday tore the Draft Constitution at a rally addressed by PF leader Michael Sata and threw it to the public saying the document was only fit for marketeers to use as a wrapper for vegetables.

[Times of Zambia]
August 6,2010

Final Note:
There is a hunger in most people, especially those privileged to moderate public discourse, to dictate what should or should not be appropriate conduct or the right thing to say. Many times they would rule one right or wrong without an explanation and when they happen to be so kind as to explain themselves, they fail to be rational. They tell somebody it is wrong to do or say something but they don't take time to explain why they think so. Subsequently, they stick a label on the other person and leave it at that.

A rational thinker evaluates other people's utterances before they make a response. They ask questions such as, 'What was wrong and what was right in what the person said?' They are always aware that no matter how thin a slice is, there are always two sides to it. 'What do I think the person missed and why do I think the person was right?' They remind themselves that there is always a chance that the other person was right and that possibility should given equal time. And lastly and more importantly, they ask, 'What is the weak area and what is the strong side of my judgment? What makes me think I am not as biased, one way or another, as the person whose comments I am evaluating?' This is not hard to do. All it requires is to listen, pause and think on what one hears or read an then respond when it is absolutely necessary.

And the title of Irrational Thinker of the Week goes to Zaloumis.