Tenets of Neo-Morality

________________________

1. Accountability

Neo-morality will ensure that there is accountability in public offices for public affairs. Moral leaders are those who take responsibility for success as well as for failure. They understand that they are not the masters but custodians of public interests. They dispatch the duties of their jurisdiction with prudence and care knowing that they will be held accountable.

2. Investment-Orientation

Moral leaders value the future. They don’t borrow excessively so that posterity wallows in burdensome debts! For Zambia, time to invest is always now because the future generation depends on what is handed over to them. Without this there can never be any economic hope. If Zambia does not invest in its people she will continue to depend on outsiders to run the economy.

3. Bottom-to-Up Prioritization

Neo-morality is the answer to the upper-bracket-wealth-monopoly. Neo-morality demands that wealth flows from the bottom up, from the governed to the governors. Moral-conscious leaders will first meet the needs of the people before they do anything for themselves.

4. Value-Based Approach

Neo-morality is a value based ideology which seeks to inculcate honesty and integrity in its adherents. When two governments take over power they are on level terms. The distinction in later years will be determined by the values they attached to what was entrusted into their care. If from the outset the governments favour hard work, equality and fair distribution of national wealth, they will have less trouble in satisfying the needs of the people.

But, as is often the case in many African governments, once these governments take over power the first thing you see them doing is changing the public wardrobe, buying expensive cars, making costly and frequent trips abroad and getting flamboyant allowances on irrelevant assignments. Neo-morality demands that value precedes self-indulgence and the people are more valuable than bureaucracies.

5. Integrity

Neo-morality is anchored on people-centred leaders who are keen on displaying the inner quality of integrity. Integrity is both a moral and political issue. Political, because the leaders represent the people and are put in charge on a contract. The people come first before the leaders. The people are the reason why there is government and government is a representative of the wishes, dreams, and aspirations of the people. Integrity ensures that there is efficiency and effectiveness in the handling of public business.

Lack of integrity is detrimental to sustainable development. Leaders who lack integrity will easily steal from national treasury and cover up their activities. They will re-channel capital into their own pockets and will not be concerned whether the people suffer or not. Men and women without integrity are plunderers and cannot be trusted to deal with other people’s property. They will abuse political office for their own dubious interests.

Neo-morality is political moral ethics tailored towards the combating of poverty, unemployment, profiteering, exploitation and economical plunder. People should demand to know the “integrity background” of their leaders before they can grant them the mandate to rule.

6. Liberal Democratic Principles

Neo-morality adheres to liberal democratic ideals. There is cause to respect the rights of individuals and at the same time protecting the majority. A combination of public rule and a form of government subject to restraints is a common feature of Neo-morality. Government needs to be restrained in order to preserve democracy. The presidential term of office, separation of powers, and the legal protection of the rights and freedoms of the citizens are some of the ways of protecting the people against the tyranny of the majority.

Neo-morality is consistent with the guarantee of personal freedoms, and in particular freedoms of speech and religion, the right to private property, and the right of political opposition.

Neo-morality espouses the principle of limited government. Government is not in general charge of all society. Rather, government is an instrument serving a particular function in society. In addition, both government and the people must abide by the same laws. No-one is above the law. And government should ensure that it enforces the law impartially. And finally, the understanding that government emanates from the people, is responsible to them, and may be changed by them, is a basic concept of Neo-morality.

7. Free-Market vs. Welfare State

Both John Locke and Adam Smith helped develop the theory of free market economy. According to this theory human needs are best served by free competition in the economic marketplace. The role of government is to enforce the rules of property and agreements that make competition possible. In doing so, government should not direct the process.
T.H Green in the nineteenth century proposed another system akin to free market, and yet different in applicability. He believed that government should regulate liberty of contract in order to secure a higher standard of living for the less fortunate. His theory laid the foundation of the welfare state. Income tax was used as a means of redistribution of wealth; government became involved into unemployment insurance, and organized labour was encouraged.

Neo-morality is a balance between the two approaches. Zambia has undergone two ideological regimes. During the Kaunda era, Zambia embraced democratic socialism ideals. The government of the day upheld the constitution and, at list on paper, encouraged participation in party politics. Prior to 1972, the UNIP government accepted market economy and private property ownership. In other words, the UNIP government embraced a mixed economy.

This changed in 1991 when the Chiluba and Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) came to power. They adopted a liberalized economic system which favoured a free-market economy. Private property ownership became a norm. President Chiluba even went so far as to sell government owned houses and businesses to the people. Major parastatal companies and the mining sector were privatized to private and foreign investors.

Neither the free-market nor the welfare state system is bad. But despite this fact, they have not produced sustainable development for Zambia. In theory both regimes embraced sound economic systems. Why is it then that the systems they adopted did not bear much fruit? I believe the answer lies in the timing and extent of implementation. The Kaunda regime ignored the role of competition in development and the Chiluba regime failed to put in place a sound structure and equitable infrastructure for fair competition. In fact, everything seemed to have been done in a hurry; leaving the free advantage for the already rich, while the poor became even poorer.

In Zambia, the situation requires government to play a coaching role in the economic arena. Just like a coach, government should think strategically and tactically. Flexibility is the key concept. The people should be allowed to compete freely in the economic marketplace. And at the same time, government should regulate liberty of contract in order to secure a higher standard of living for those who may not compete effectively.