Photo courtesy

Sane and thinking Zambians agree that the president is the chief diplomat of the nation. As part of his political duty, he must sell the country to the global stand. One of the ways of doing so is through diplomatic trips abroad. Other equally sane and thinking Zambians disagree, but with reasons. They believe that the trips’ frequency have not brought any meaningful development to the country. They, further, argue, that the entourage is excessively large, and the only people who benefit from these trips are the president himself (he gets the chance to run away from local issues and enjoy elegant foreign hotels) and his retinue of clueless entourage who get the chance to return home with foreign-acquired items. Do these two camps have each a point? This brief article will review.
 
The first thing that greets you when you get a chance to browse the Internet on Zambia is a “copper-rich yet impoverished South African country.” And Lusaka, Zambia’s Capital City, is put in this way, “The most prominent feature of Lusaka…is the dust. It’s everywhere—frosting the paved roads, burying the unpaved ones, coming off your hands in big brown drops no matter how many times you wash them.” I have always wondered why commentators, analysts and journalists, whether from the West, the East or even from Africa itself, begin in this fashion.
 
From the above, two conclusions are possible. The president’s trips abroad to sell Zambia have either failed or are a waste of national resources. Or the president’s efforts at marketing Zambia abroad have not yet begun to yield fruits.
 
Proponents of international diplomacy argue that foreign trips are aimed at promoting economic development in Zambia. In this regard, presidential foreign trips are in line with the international trend of economic diplomacy. By economic diplomacy, they mean the means by which countries interact with the outside world in order to maximize national gains. And this may mean maximizing trade, investment and image. These then are beneficial to the economic development of Zambia. And there is some truth to this. For example a recent trip to Malawi by President Lungu was partly aimed at attracting regional development by signing the Malawi/Zambia Trans Frontier Conservation Areas (TFCA) Treaty.
 
Moreover, proponents argue, that foreign presidential trips are a way of sustaining and enhancing Zambia’s international relations. Presidents usually carry with them on these missions the people (politicians and technocrats alike) who have designated expertise on certain issues. The aim is to liaison with their foreign counterparts and to negotiate agreements and/or treaties on behalf of the president. This is understandable. And the proponents have continued to argue that, in the case of Zambia, these frequent presidential trips do not affect the president’s work at home. There is great scrutiny, they argue, and if the president’s office did not do its due diligence, the president would be on a mission trip 365 days a year. The last argument is that the president does not waste the nation’s money because these trips are budgeted for. Parliament is said to pass a budget every year earmarked for presidential trips. The assumption then is that the president cannot overspend on what is pre-approved. These arguments are cogent, and Zambia is not the only country on the globe whose presidents travel out of the country.
 
However, Zambian presidential trips ought to be put in perspective. First, they are overtly frequent and they reveal the underlying political dishonesty and hypocrisy of successive political regimes. By “frequency” the best number is “a lot” (see Harry Kalaba’s comments below) – a typical Zambian president may be travelling to some form of a meeting abroad, if not challenged by opposition, almost every fortnight! Under the MMD, the PF’s strongman, late president Sata, vehemently condemned President Banda’s trips abroad arguing that the trips were a waste of the country’s meagre resources which could have benefitted the majority poor Zambians. Under the current regime, President Lungu is on record that he wants to travel abroad frequently in order to repair the Zambian image that has been mired in the last three years. Those last three years were PF years, and the incumbent promised to “keep President Sata’s vision.” The incumbent cannot claim to continue late Sata’s vision and at the same time condemn the late president’s record or vision. But the president is correct; Zambia’s image is in bad shape and will his trips “redeem” it this time?
 
Second, the president may be the chief diplomat, but the government has ambassadors, high-commissioners and other plenipotentiaries across the globe that are receiving hefty pays at the expense of the sweat of the tax-payers at home. If these are doing their jobs well, the president needs not travel at the frequency Zambian presidents travel abroad. It is reasonable to suggest that if the president is going to be speaking on behalf of the country abroad at a relatively higher frequency than is reasonable, then some foreign missions should be closed in order to retain some money for local investment. The PF itself revealed that costs associated with a presidential trip are colossal: “It is also good when the president [President Sata] does not travel a lot because the cost associated with presidential trips is colossal,” (Harry Kalaba, NewZaimbabwe, 2014).
 
Third, the argument that these trips are meant to sell or market Zambia abroad is obsolete or even redundant. Regime after regime have used this argument, and yet, despite being copper-rich, Zambia is still very much impoverished. Someone has mocked, “It is ‘nice’ being president in an African country with massive poverty and illiteracy – watching all the people languishing in grinding poverty and dying from curable, preventable tropical diseases…enjoying the opulence of State House. How do these leaders sleep at night after visiting the dusty shanties, seeing all those malnourished children lining up to the dusty roads dressed in rags like miniature zombies? African leaders have no shame!”

The point is not in the lamentation but in what is implied. If the president has travelled even to not-so-much developed South Africa, he has seen how roads are maintained, shanty-compounds are updated or how these countries deal with poverty. Our African presidents are travelling all the time, and are not learning from those developed countries they visit. If any Zambian president has been to London, Toronto or Chicago, and returns home to Zambia and cannot do something tangible to “redeem” Lusaka, for example, then these trips are fruitless at best and a waste of the tax-payers’ money at worst.
 
In conclusion, presidential foreign trips are not bad in themselves. In Zambia, it is the use and frequency of these trips that are at issue. If the president travels abroad to broker some agreement with progressive impact upon the economy of Zambia in general or upon the well-being the masses in particular or if at the end of the trips massive foreign investments pour in into the country or if at the conclusion of the trips the image of Zambia is “redeemed,” then these trips will be justified. If, however, these trips have consistently borne no meaningful development for the nation or its people (but, as it were, do only benefit a few who receive travel allowances and shop in gargantuan malls abroad) then the trips have been wasted.

Let us face it, some quarters will ridicule this conclusion as an affront to the benefit government officials enjoy of travelling abroad. If these trips are developing the country, it will only be a fool who should condemn them. But Zambia continues to be poor despite these trips (and by no means the only factor for the poverty situation in Zambia, yet, and by any means, a contributory factor). It will be unreasonable to blame the poverty condition on Zambia squarely on these trips or to shunt the president at State House for the rest of his term.  But for a country rich on paper (copper-rich) but poor in practice, anything that is a waste of national resources is injurious to its development, and must be addressed. This is what makes democracy a government of the people, by the people, and for the people!

By Charles Mwewa

Charles Mwewa is the author of Zambia: Struggles of My People and the two volume study of President Michael Sata entitled, King Cobra Has Struck and Allergic to Corruption. His latest book is Legal Aspects of Landlord and Tenant Law in Canada.