what is good or bad about Subsidies?

What is the way forward?

1. Subsidies are a way of protecting the vulnerable

Economic policy decisions do not affect all of us in equal measure. Subsidies ensure that the most vulnerable among the population don’t fall through the cracks which are the consequences of economic and social policy decisions.

2. Subsidies are a universal practice

In Europe, farm subsidies have been the most controversial, yet they have been maintained to shore up incomes of farmers.

 Over half of all African countries had some subsidy in place for fuel products, and these subsidies consumed, on average, 1.4 percent of Gross domestic product.

3. Subsidies are not entirely a waste as we are made to believe

The problem with subsidy however, has to do with unintended beneficiaries benefiting from the package. 

This calls for better targeting and not total withdrawal of the support.

4. Fuel Subsidy cushions workers from high transport fares 

Transport fares will be higher than they are now, taking up substantial percentage of the average worker’s monthly income.

5. Subsidies help business to remain competitive

Fuel subsidy helps to keep production cost in check, and contributes to making the manufacturing and service sectors competitive.  

When that happens, employers will have to either cut back on their workforce as a cost saving measure or increase the prices of their goods and services.

6. Subsidies keep food prices at affordable levels

Because food consumed in urban centres is ferried by road transport, fuel subsidy withdrawal will certainly lead to increase in food prices. 

7. Fuel Subsidy secures farmers income

Increases in road haulage fares as a result of fuel subsidy withdrawal will increase farmers’ cost of transporting their produce to market centres and in that process reduce their disposable income.

8. Subsidies make utilities affordable

Two of the most essential utilities - water and electricity, depend a great deal on petroleum products.

Therefore, an increase in the prices of gas and diesel will spark off an automatic increase in electricity and water tariffs.  

9. Providing safety nets through subsidies is part of the reason 

we elect governments

This is why providing safety nets for the marginalized have become the business of responsible governments. Subsidies are therefore inevitable in carrying out the functions of government.

10. Not all those who drive are rich

The assumption underlining government’s decision to withdraw fuel subsidy is that fuel subsidy benefits the rich more than the poor.

Many have been compelled to take loans to buy cars because of the non-existence of a decent and reliable public transport system. Driving now, has become more of a convenience than a luxury.

Assume the governments spends an average of half of 13 kwacha 70 ngwee to subsidize a litre of petrol ,it means for every 20 liters you buy per week, the government pays for you 137 kwacha meaning in a month over 548 kwacha is spent. 

The rich benefits more because in a month they buy thousands of liters to power their office, homes, cars and so on while an average citizen can only manage to buy 50 litres in one month which amounts to 342 kwacha.

There is nothing commendable about fuel subsidies, unless you are a vote-buying politician. Subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, and drain national treasuries.

But fuel subsidies—like all subsidies—are exceedingly difficult to eliminate.

This calls for better targeting and not total withdrawal of the support.

The Speech Analyst

A LEADER WHO ACCEPTS DEFEAT IS A WINNER

August 11^th is almost here; it offers the people of Zambia an opportunity to vote for a new set of Leaders starting from the ward level to the office of the President.

Whether or not the campaigns have made any impact to the voters, the outcome will be known a few days after the poll day when Chief Justice Ireen Mambilima declares the Winner.

 The voter is the decider of Zambia’s destiny and not political players who have spent the last three months promising heaven on Earth.

If a Candidate loses it is a message that he or she did not do enough to convince the masses which therefore means the winning Candidate did the best.

“When defeat comes, accept it as a signal that your plans are not sound, rebuild those plans, and set sail once more toward your coveted goal.” Said Napoleon Hill, Think and Grow Rich.

An Election is like any other game where there is a Winner and a Loser; hence it is important that those who will lose to use available channels to lodge their complaints.

Nobody enters a race to come last but there is a painful reality that one person must emerge victorious above the rest, harsh as it maybe but acceptance is another mark of being a good Leader.

Even after losing a Leader must provide direction to Followers with a hope of redeeming oneself in the near future, failure to do that is a sign of being weak.

The late Muhammad Ali once said that “I never thought of losing, but now that it's happened, the only thing is to do it right, he added that “we all have to take defeats in life.”

A Leader is a Leader even after Losing; there is more to losing with dignity than showing childish behavior of refusing to concede defeat, which can be disastrous in going forward.

Leaders who secretly incite followers to break the law are not ready to take over the affairs of the government because he or she is a law breaker.

In 1919 Mahatma Gandhi said “Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat for it is momentary."

Presidential Candidates know that only one of them should become a president for this great and peaceful nation of more than 14 million people.

We know about Counselors in the Health circles and they are doing a great job but we need them even in activities like politics.

“While one may encounter many defeats, one must not be defeated.” According to Maya Angelou

Former President Rupiah Banda conceded electoral defeat to late Patriotic Front leader Michael Sata on 23^rd of September, 2011.

In his acceptance speech Mr. Banda said that "The people of Zambia have spoken and we must all listen," while wiping away tears after finishing his speech.

Three years before that in 2008, Mr. Sata had vowed that there was no way he would lose to Mr. Banda.

Even Adolf Hitler acknowledged that defeat happens in Life he once stated that “Anyone can deal with victory. Only the mighty can bear defeat.”

After days of thinking through the defeat to Mr. Banda, who was serving the term left by late President Levy Mwanawasa, the late Sata calmed his supporters and continued campaigning till he won in 2011. 

 In Zambia and many African Countries, there are no institutions that specialize in attending to people who suffer aftershocks of defeat.

In 2014 Former Malawian President Joyce Banda congratulated Mr. Peter Mutharika, the current President on his "victory in a closely contested election" saying she was "leaving office a happy person".

 
Mrs. Banda had called for cancellation of the election results claiming the contest was "null and void".

 Elsewhere former Ivory Coast president Laurent Gbagbo refused to concede to current President Alassane Ouattara in 2010; it re-ignited a civil war killing hundreds of innocent people.

Politicians obsessed about winning and refuse to accept loss in the elections have the traits of a dictatorship in a democratic system

A Malaysian political analyst, Associate Professor Dr. Sivamurugan Pandian stated that if such people rule, he feared that people would lose their voice.

Zambia is bigger than any political party or individual who aspires to govern the people and once he or she loses they must be able to pick themselves up and look ahead.

The next general elections in 2021 offers a losing Candidate a chance to perfect strategies that can deliver a positive a victorious outcome.

Let us be peaceful and remain united, we are One Zambia, One Nation. Elections come and go!

IS ZAMBIA READY FOR PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES?

Opposition Leader Hakainde Hichilema is challenging President Edgar Lungu to a live television debate to discuss national issues, a call which has received annoying response from the ruling party.

Patriotic Front deputy Spokesman Frank Bwalya made it clear that President Lungu cannot be subjected to a debate against any presidential Candidate ahead of next month’s general elections.

Debate is good as it offers an opportunity to participants to explain their ideas to an audience.

High profile debates are common in Western Countries where people are treated to heated exchange of ideas upon which they make informed decisions.

In Zambia, a debate at that level is still in its infancy but at University level Candidates aspiring for Leadership mandatorily face an audience to outline their plans.

I do not know why President Lungu is not interested to take on his main challenger Mr. Hichilema, the president of the United Party for National Development?

It is a good idea for the nation to be treated to such a debate where a sitting head of State can engage in a war of words on national issues with his presidential opponents.

The late president Frederick Titus Chiluba considered by many as one of Zambia’s eloquent speakers never publicly debated against his rivals.

On the regional level former president of Malawi Joyce Banda in 2014 refused to participate in a presidential debate saying she was busy with campaigns.

During the same period current president Peter Mutharika was also absent.

Down South late Nelson Mandela debated then President FW de Klerk ahead of the 1994 elections.

Since then no leader of the ruling African National Congress has engaged in any debate, it says the idea is bad not even former president Thabo Mbeki or 

President Jacob Zuma has taken part in a presidential debate.

Lastly but not the least in 2009 Current Botswana president Ian Khama including a leader of the opposition Botswana congress party Mr. Gilson Saleshando snubbed a presidential debate.

Having cited those examples I want to point out that on the African Continent, a presidential debate is not a collect yardstick to determine who is a good Leader to govern a nation.

In the Western World such debates are for the elite or the literate in society, people who are able to scrutinize national policies with less explanation.

Illiteracy levels in most African Countries Zambia inclusive are too high where certain people do not even know the correct way to cast a ballot paper.

There is nothing wrong with a sitting head of State debating against his or her presidential Candidates but ordinary people do not base their judgments on how somebody articulate policies.

Assuming President Edgar Lungu went ahead to debate against Mr. Hichilema, the opposition Leader could be seen to have an upper hand based on his arguments at the failures of the current government.

I know President Lungu has what it takes to debate and there is no doubt about it but speculations is all over that the head of State fears Mr. Hichilema.

For instance on the education policy Mr. Hichilema wants to provide free education from primary level up to university Level.

President Lungu cannot afford to counter argue such a point for one obvious reason, he knows that the resource pool available may not support free education.

The stand point of President Lungu in the debate can be on the current existing national policies therefore making it almost impossible to act against such policies.

At the moment Mr. Hichilema has nothing to lose because he is a challenger like in boxing match such that he must knock down the champion through whatever means even enticing people with untested policies.

Character assassination between the two Leaders ranging from being called a non-believer to lacking leadership to me to some extent that has contributed to such a debate not taking place.

It is also important to bear in mind that in the African context questioning Leadership on accountability publicly is considered a taboo.

Despite Many African countries embracing democratic values, divergence no matter how objective, it is considered as lack of respect for Leaders, which should not be the case.

President Lungu could go to that debate carrying the office of the Zambian presidency that must be protected from unwarranted attacks from his opponents.

Media pressure forces presidential Candidates Even in the United States of America to debate against each other, because it is not mandatory.

Maybe it is time for all elective positions to be subjected to a debate by enshrining such a provision into the Constitution of Zambia.

RALLIES HEAD TO HEAD WITH ONLINE MEDIA

Political Campaigns have reached a climax as the 11^th August draws closer for Citizens to choose their preferred President, Member of Parliament, Councillor as well as Mayors and Council Chairpersons, new additions to the electoral process.

From my observations, a number of things have not changed in terms of strategy; it is a situation of using the same trick to trap an elusive prey, which in this case, is a voter.

 

Modern day Politicians still rely on public gatherings as the one of the many methods to disseminate their campaign messages to both loyal and undecided people.

Political parties have trekked and they are still coming to you and me for that single vote that is so crucial in what analysts predict to be highly contested general elections.

The latest inclusion to the elections in the Modern World is social media such as Facebook, twitter, and many other platforms available.

Having rallies and using social media platforms have own advantages and disadvantages depending on how it is used by the communicator.

Modern day Politicians still rely on public gatherings as the one of the many methods to disseminate their campaign messages to both loyal and undecided people.

Door to door approach is not widely used by politicians for one obvious reason of not reaching masses at one given time especially in vast wards or constituencies, but it is a powerful mode of communication.

This mode offers a Candidate a one on one interaction with a voter; it enables a Candidate to have first hand information regarding a particular problem facing a given community.

A Candidate who direct manages a social media account can respond to queries on the timeline or those forwarded in the inbox and it excites followers.

Big Rallies or Mammoth gatherings like others like to describe them are slowly becoming a keeping up appearance events or show off function to claim what I call “artificial popularity”.

Artificial popularity because it does not mean all is well and those watching or listening to your message are behind a certain Candidate 100 percent, it is unpredictable even if numbers don’t lie.

The sad part about rallies is that Politicians use them to send unproductive messages that just excite people instead of advancing real issues.

Remember in 2015, the Electoral Commission of Zambia recorded over 16 thousand rejected ballot papers that could have been avoided if politicians explained to a voter how to best to cast a ballot paper.

 This also applies to social media; you will find that most of the messages are either one sided or a total fabrication of a true statement.

People managing online sites have a tough time to strike a balance of sending well balanced stories that can help Citizens make informed decisions and to please their pay masters.

Over a thousand people may like an online posting or a particular account but there is no guarantee to verify that once a message everybody seeing it agrees you.

Come 2021 Social media will be at the centre of Zambia’s political spotlight in that it does not observe the Constitutional requirements of the now condemned Public order act.

Social media penetrates even the stronghold of rivalry political parties, what is needed is to ensure that internet connection is widened and reduce the charges by service providers.

Social media has caused problems the latest was the failed coup plot in Turkey where a whatsapp group called the “Safety of the nation” was used by thousands of Turks to rise against an elected government.

Politicians like and hate social message just like they do not appreciate their opponents holding big rallies in areas perceived to be their strongholds.

People attend rallies for different reasons worse still not all those at the rally are eligible voters, they may also not be loyal supporters of a particular party.

Being a Public speaking Coach and a debater of more than 10 years experience, it is important and very difficult at the same time to keep the audience alive or connected to your message between 2 to 4 hours.

During such rallies, very few politicians educate the voter on the correct way of casting a ballot paper.

One thing is certain, social media is very power and it influences masses at a click of button.

Those in the working class do not have the luxury of attending a rally being addressed by politicians while those out of employment flood political gatherings in compounds and many other places.

I may be right or wrong to suggest that rallies are for the unemployed who are the majority while as social media is for the minority in society.

Look out for the government of national unit in the next publication.

Thank you