It was a missed call, but a very important one. “Charles, the streets are littered with mourners – the Indians, the Chinese, and of course, the Black people, the Zambians,” a well-trusted colleague left a message on my answering machine. Later, it was confirmed the “Presidents of Namibia, Kenya, Mozambique, Madagascar and Zimbabwe,” attended the funeral which was consummated at the newly refurbished Kenneth Kaunda Stadium (Independence Stadium). Others in attendance included Vice-presidents from Malawi and Gambia (West Africa). There were also Prime Ministers from Uganda, Tanzania, Swaziland, and four former Presidents, apart from Kenneth Kaunda and Rupiah Banda. Other dignitaries from ECOWAS and the African Union also came to pay their respects. The delegations from Angola, Ethiopia, DR Congo, Rwanda, South Sudan, SARAWI Arab Republic, China, Lesotho, Britain (Queen's representative), Ghana, SADC, COMESA, and the Great Lakes Region, also were in attendance.

By all standards, President Sata had an apt send-off on November 11th, 2014.

There are many people who may be unhappy that Michael Sata did not deserve such an exception funeral. They are wrong for three reasons. First, each nation must determine its own destiny, and Zambia is not an exception. President Michael Sata was very much loved by the Zambians. One person very close to the late president, and an objective analyst of Zambia’s political developments had this to say, “[Sata’s send-off] was definitely much bigger than the one Mwanawasa had.” People should NOT compare one funeral to another. However, here a comparison is warranted owing to the unsaid sentiments, especially just prior to the burial of Michael Sata.

The dead must be respected. That is a fundamental African tradition and custom. In respecting the dead, it is believed, a safe passage is created for them to the world yonder. For Michael Sata, however, political connotations outweigh religious sensibilities. Sata was second-guessed by many people. Some called him “Idiot”, “Uneducated” and majority referred to his nick-name “Cobra” in a derogatory fashion. He was “abrasive, a chain smoker, had a venomous tongue, insulted his Ministers openly, lacked diplomatic niceties, embarrassed George W. Bush, imprisoned opposition leaders,” they say. It may be true, and even false, but who cares? However he lived and governed, in death Michael Sata has been vindicated.

Second, what Michael Sata lacked in an economic agenda he made it up for his love for the common person on the street and the poor. Some still argue that great economic policies are better than a stint of hope. I agree. I espouse the same, but with modifications. People must first believe before they can experience. This is all too often true in many avenues of life. Before we apply for loans we are asked for our business plans. We are, in essence, asked to define the basis of our hope, our vision and mission. Without it, the investor will be reluctant to lend their hard-earned securities. What Michael Sata did in three years is that he gave hope to the Zambians (I will, in subsequent articles argue that President Sata made promises he did not fulfil such as “more money into your pockets” constitution revamping in three months, and etc.) and, perhaps, had he continued his tenure, he would have accomplished all. This is the benefits those who die in office have – no-one knows what would have become of them and their policies had they lived! So, we must rest assured, and judge, objectively rather than myopically, Sata’s legacy based on what the people of Zambia feel. Can the people be mistaken? Absolutely. Can they live a lie? Of course yes. We need not move far from the premise. Still wallowing in poverty, the majority Zambians are still living on less-than-a-dollar-a-day. Many are dying from curable diseases and still many more are unemployed. Still many Zambians would parade the streets and mourn the president. Naivety or confused? May be yes. May be not. But whatever the case, Michael Chlufya Sata has been meritoriously mourned by the people of Zambia.

Third, Sata spoke a common language – the language of the street vendor, the Mishanga-Boys, the marketeer and the uneducated. They found in him a true friend in State House. They could relate to him, they could approach him. To some, he was like a poor father who still had affection for the good of his children. This author has written a biography of Sata, met Sata and spoke to Sata at State House. He was found, that’s President Sata, to be personable, fun and approachable – a truly pleasure to be with.

In the coming days, President Sata’s political and economic legacy will be reviewed, without emotional sensitivities. At that time, the nation will learn what Sata accomplished and what he did not. Sata’s legacy, at that time, will be either denigrated or cemented. It will have to be – all who undertake to rule are analysed. The opposition political parties, especially, have a duty to critically analyse the legacy of Sata. It would be, for example, a shame and disservice to the people, if Sata enters the annals of history as “the president who was well-mourned but who brought no tangible economic benefit to the nation.” Or worse still, as a “politician who was followed by the majority poor, but only a few benefitted from his magnanimity.” That will be a sham. If it may be said, and I pray, that Sata was well-loved and mourned for the fact that he gave the people hope, but he was found wanting for lack of a definitive developmental agenda – and using this parameter the next leaders aim to bridge this gap – then Sata’s heroic death would not end up as a lost cause or a villainous struggle!

I wish Zambia a peaceful, but issue-based-and-filled campaign session as the nation elects a replacement to President Michael Sata.

By Charles Mwewa